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 000318 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 #:
000318
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:
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.

936 Lewis M. Swaab, Cross Examination. 1 swer? What is the ground upon which he dislikes to answer? The Witness (Swaab) : I claim, your Honor, that it is my personal and private business. That is the only reason. Mr. Kingsley : We claim, your Honor, that it goes directly to the question of whether he has been injured by this corporation, or not. Mr. Caldwell: He did not have any objection to disclosing his personal and private business when he was asked on direct examination, "How much did 2 you agree to take from the General Film Company?'' and answered "Thirty-seven thousand dollars." Judge Kay: Whether in the Trial Court or the Court of ancillary jurisdiction, of course if it appears that the question and its answer are pertinent and proper, that the answer would have some bearing on the question at issue, then he should be instructed to answer. If, on the other hand, it is outside of the real issue and goes into a person's private business or concerns and the answer could have no bearing upon the real issue, then of course he should not be required to answer. Mr. Caldwell: We claim that it has a bearing, if the direct testimony of the Government as to what he has agreed to sell originally for, is material and has a bearing. Mr. Grosvenor: We simply showed that they called him to New York and made him this offer of |37,000. That the thing fell through in 1910. Now, what bearing does the question asked about a transaction two years later, with entirely different parties, another business which he had worked up in two years, in an entirely different subject matter, in films manufactured by different parties, have? Now he sells out to different persons, and they ask him, "What did you get for your business when you sold it out?1' What relation has that to my queston, which was directed to the affairs in 1910, and which were simply for the purpose of showing that this General Film Company and the Patents Company not only got every business there in Philadelphia, but when he was left, they called him to New York and asked 3