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 000208 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 #:
000208
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.

826 Lewis M. Swaab, Direct Examination. Q. What effect did that visit have upon your business? A. Well, I could not do any business, and after they left, I had no films to supply any customers with, except a lot of old back numbers that I had purchased long before the Patents Company was in existence. Q. What became of your customers? A. They left and went to the other exchanges. The other, as we called them, "Trust Exchanges." Q. Have you brought any suits against these persons for their action on that day? A. I contested their action, yes, sir. Q. And how many suits did you bring against these ten manufacturers for their action on this day? Mr. Kingsley: Objected to on the ground that the witness had not testified that he brought any suits. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Please answer the question. A. If you will permit me to explain in my own way, perhaps I don't understand your legal lore. They issued these ten writs of replevin against me, and I am contesting their action now. I am really the defendant in these cases. They are the plaintiffs. Q. Has one of these suits been tried? A. Yes, sir. Q. And how did the verdict come out? Mr. Kingsley: Objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant and on the ground it has not been shown there wras any verdict. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. What was the verdict, if any, rendered in that case? A. $1,800, last May. Mr. Melville : I object to that on the ground that that that is incompetent. The record of the Court is the only competent evidence of what happened in legal proceedings. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. In whose favor? A. In my favor against Lubin. Q. The verdict of the jury was $1,800? A. $1,800.