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)

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 #:
000185
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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:
June 13, 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.

Lewis M. Swaab, Direct Examination. 803 and among them I recall that Mr. Swanson and Mr. Fox objected to a number of provisions. Q. Was a committee appointed to see the manufacturers? A. Yes, sir; I believe that Mr. Swanson was chairman of that first committee. Q. Was any change made in the agreement, as a result of this committee meeting the manufacturers? A. Nothing of any importance, no important change was made. Q. Did you finally sign the license agreement? A. Yes, sir. Q. You may state whether or not there was an adequate source of supply of films for your rental exchanges in the country at that time, outside of the manufacturers who had become members of this license association under the Patents Company. A. There was not an adequate supply of good film. Q. In the year 1909, and also in the year 1910, how many other licensed exchanges were there doing business in the City of Philadelphia? A. In the first stages, there were five. One was subsequently cancelled — that was the Philadelphia Film Exchange. That left four remaining, until the General Film Company came into existence. Q. Were these different film exchanges in competition with each other? A. Yes, very much so. Q. Now, you may state whether or not in the years 1909, and 1910, you observed the terms of the license agreement? A. I did. Q. You may state whether or not in May, 1910, you had some correspondence with the Motion Picture Patents Company in connection with a certain rule of that exchange license agreement? A. I did. Q. Were some of your customers located outside the city of Philadelphia? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have a customer in Baltimore? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. What is meant by the "release day?" A. The day on which a film may be rented, a special day set apart by the manufacturers to release, or give out that film. Q. And is there an hour fixed when it becomes released? A. I am not sure, but I believe it says "eight o'clock." Q. Was that one of the rules which you were required to observe by the license exchange agreement? A. So I believe.