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 #:
000561
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.

George K. SrooR, Direct Examination. 3003 all the available patents on projecting machines, and on cameras, and on films, that it was possible to get, and, that they had formed that into a holding company to be known as the Motion Picture Patents Company; that they had made arrangements with the Eastman Kodak Company to get the exclusive use of the Eastman stock, and that a competitor would have but very little chance entering the field, owing to the fact that they had all the patents on the various apparatus, and particularly the Eastman stock, the Eastman raw stock." What truth, if any, is there in that statement of Swanson's? A. I don't know that there is any truth in it. Q. Was anything said about any arrangements with the Eastman Kodak Company? A. No, sir, there could not have; been. , Q. Was anything said about the transfer of all the patents, or all the available patents on projecting machines, cameras, and films to the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. There was no discussion witli Mr. Swanson along that line at all. Q. Was Mr. Swanson's condition such as to make it possible for him to discuss these matters with you at that time? Mr. Grosvenor: I object to that question, it not having been shown that the witness' condition was such that he is qualified to express an opinion as to Mr. Swanson's condition. Mr. Kingsley: That is always presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. You may answer the question? A. Please repeat the question. The question was repeated to the witness as follows : "Q. Was Mr. Swanson's condition such as to make it possible for him to discuss these matters with you at that time?" A. No, his condition was not. Q. ITo was also asked this question and made tins answer (p. 307) : "Q. State whether or not anything was said 4