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)

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 #:
000560
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 21, 2023
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.

3002 George K. Spoor, Direct Examination. Q. "Q. In what way did they point out the benefits (p. 306, Vol. I)? A. The License Company formation and the contract as proposed." Did you or either Mr. Selig or Mr. Kleine point out any benefits to Mr. Swanson to be derived from the formation of the Patents Company? A. Not to my knowledge, and I don't think we did. Q. "Q. In what way would it benefit them? A. It would benefit them in having control of the business, and shut out competition" (p. 30G). Did you or either of you state on that occasion, in words or in substance, that it would benefit you in having control of the business and shut out competition? A. No, sir, we did not. Q. In further response to the same question Mr. Swanson continues as follows: "I told the gentlemen there that I had already in my possession a copy of the proposed contract with the exchanges." Did Swanson tell you that? A. No, sir, he did not. Q. Also, he says: "I also had a copy of another contract that they proposed putting out relative to projecting machines." Did he tell you that in words or in substance? A. He didn't tell me that; no, sir. Q. Or was it said in your presence? A. I didn't hear it. Q. His answer continues as follows : "This second contract never had been put out by the Patents Company, and they said if I was their friend, which I had presumably been for years, that I would work with them to help them put it over, as they thought well of the scheme, and it would unquestionably make them all rich, and would perhaps be personally beneficial to me." Was anything like that said? A. No, sir. Q. And he continues : " — but they requested one particular favor, that I would make no speech regarding the matter whatever at the opening of the meeting of the Film Service Association. I gave them the promise that I would not make any speech on the matter, and did not." Did you or either of the other gentlemen in your presence make any such request of Mr. Swanson? A. I did not, and I didn't hear the other gentlemen do so. Q. Mr. Swanson was also asked this question and gave this answer (p. 307) : "Q. Was anything said about patents during this conversation at the Republican Club? A. They went over the ground, of course, that they had accumulated