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 (1914)

Page scan 00038 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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
00038
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.

2488 Fred C. Aiken, Cross Examination. purchased, was carried out. I do not think it was, by the Film Service Association. And No. 2, no duplicating of films — that means, no duping. Q. Were those measures that the film renters were desirous of having put into operation? A. Yes, sir; it was the film renters, yes, sir. Q. This Mr. Swanson, W. H. Swanson, referred to, was the Swanson that was engaged in the rental exchange business in Chicago? A. Yes, sir. Q. And other places? A. Yes, sir. Q. This article states under the heading, "Resume of Proceedings" : "Saturday morning, the various renting concerns began to file into the hotel and introduce themselves. This naturally took some time, but was well spent. At 11 :30 the first meeting was called to order, when W. H. Swanson, of Chicago, and D. MacDonald, New York, were appointed, respectively, President and Secretary, pro tern. The first business Avas the collating of a roll call of all present, their firms and standing. Mr. Swanson then welcomed the various delegates, gave an able and lucid address on the trials and difficulties, the good and evil points in the renting business, expressing the hope that the conference would be able to arrive at some definite policy, wThereby the good could be improved and the evil eliminated. The ideas he expressed seemed to voice the sentiments of all, and, after outlining the objects of the conference, he made a. suggestion that a committee on credentials be appointed, which was immediately acted upon. This committee at once set to work and reported favorably on the propriety of the conference. Following this, a committee consisting of Messrs. Swanson, MacDonald, Peckham, Miles and Clark, were appointed to interview the manufacturers, the meeting adjourned to await the report of the committee, who at once proceeded to interview the manufacturers meeting in another room. "Both sides expressed their opinions, fully reviewing the pros and cons of the situation, and a plan was adopted whereby both manufacturers and renters could, in future, work in harmony with mutual benefit to both. The manufacturers expressed themselves as being in full accord with the renters, and promised them their full support. Another meeting of renters was then held at 5 P. M., to receive the report of the committee. This meeting was held in private.