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 000126 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 #:
000126
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.

744 William H. Swanson, Cross Examination. Q. After you gave the assets away you didn't ascribe very much value to the stock at that time, did you, except for the purposes of your testimony? A. Well, I felt there was a value to it, inasmuch as the man I gave the exchange to said if he ever made any money he would pay me for this stock; I never had any keen desire for the stock. Q. And your Kansas City place had been closed sometime back in 1908, during the period of Mr. Dyer's having an official position with the Edison people? A. No, it was not closed. When you asked how many exchanges I had, I had forgotten the Kansas City one. I had five at the time you mentioned, in January, 1909 — it was one of them, although it was not prepared to buy film; it was what was known as a "junk shop." Q. It was what was known as a "junk shop?" A. Yes, sir. Q. Had not been buying film from the Edison licensees? A. No, sir. Q. How long had you been cut off at that time? A. Long enough to — say two or three months. Q. You have testified further in your direct examination that Mr. Dyer had put you out of business, or something to that effect? A. Yes, sir, Mr. Dyer put me out of business in Kansas City. You are referring to that? Q. Yes. On the occasion of the formation of the Patents Company you came on here some days before the meeting of the Film Service Association? A. Yes, sir. Q. You had knowledge of the terms of the license, or the form of the license, that was to be used, for some two or three days prior to the meeting itself, didn't you? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Did you go over this license with any of the manufacturers, or any members of the Film Association, before the meeting? A. I don't recall. Q. Did you have a talk with Mr. Lubin prior to the meeting of the Film Service Association in reference to the license? A. Well, in reference to the general situation — well, I had a talk with him, I remember. Q. Did Mr. Lubin say to you he had been fighting for years, and had gone broke twice before, fighting in court? A. That took place in the meeting. Q. He did say it? A. Yes, sir. Q. You heard him? A. Yes, sir.