In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1913)

Page scan 00037 from In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 2
Leaf #:
00037
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 12, 2024
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

William H. Swanson, Cross Examination. 655 Q. Mr. Swanson, what was the object in the formation of 1 the Universal Film Company? Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that as too irrelevant to be competent, and not proper cross examination, and going into matters outside of the record, and not in any way material in this case. Mr. Willis: I am like yon. I want to show the general trend in the business. The Witness: I am very much afraid that you will try to sic on another investigation of the independents. Mr. Willis : I am not trying to do anything of that sort. I want you to appear in your true light. That is all. Read the question. The question was read by the stenographer. The Witness : The primary object was to make money. By Mr. Willis : Q. Well, what was the secondary object, if you had one? A. To make money. Q. Now, will you kindly tell me how you were going to make money? A. Selling film and manufacturing it. Q. What was the purpose of putting all these five parties, three of them corporations, and two of them firms, into one company? Why did not you let them alone and let them make money separately? A. The activity of the Patents Company was so great, that it was impossible to make money separately. Legal difficulties and litigation that they caused, was so extensive, and their organized efforts in having control of the business, and control of the programme, necessitated meeting that sort of competition with some sort of organized efforts. Q. Did the Universal Film Company own any patents, either on films or projecting machines, or cameras? A. Xo, sir. Thank God. Q. Well, what were you to be sued for? A. I will have to refer you to Messrs. Kenyon & Keuyon on that. It is too complicated for my comprehension. Q. Did they go after you for infringement of patents? 9