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 000133 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 #:
000133
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. 751 Q. And that was the film manufactured by the Edison licensees, was it not? A. Yes. Q. And that is all they could handle if they observed the terms of their agreement? A. If they observed it. There were conditions put in the agreement shutting out the use of others. I do not recall if that was precisely so. Q. You prepared the by-laws for that Association, didn't you? A. I did. Q. And you provided in those by-laws that the Film Service Association would dismiss a member if he purchased from Kleine or the Biograph Company? A. I do not recall any such by-law as that. Q. Well, aside from its being a by-law, was that a rule of the Association, or the practice? A. It was the practice, yes, but not any written rule that I have any knowledge of. Q. It was set out in the minutes of the Association that that should be done, wasn't it? A. Well, that I am unable to say. Q. Didn't you swear so on your direct? A. Sir? Q. Didn't you swear to that on your direct examination? A. Oh, no; I do not recall it. Q. Didn't you answer at page 313, "Well, if any member of the Film Service Association had bought film from Kleine or the American Mutoseope & Biograph Company at that period, they would have been dismissed from membership of the Film Service Association. Then the Film Service Association was an ally of the Edison licensees ; could not handle any goods but theirs. Q. That was so provided in the agreement? A. Yes, not in the agreement, but in the minutes of the Association." A. Well, I had it more particularly in my mind at that time. Perhaps it was right, Q. That is a fair inference from the answer, isn't it? A. Yes. I have no idea of denying — Q. (interrupting) : No; but your idea is to keep close to the phraseology? A. Yes, at times my recollections of those things are not disturbed by outside things. Q. Did Kleine withdraw from the Edison licensees because they would not permit him to release as many brands as he wished? A. That was the understanding. Or, the street understanding. Q. Now, I ask you to look at page 316 of your direct