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 #:
000562
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.

3004: George K. Spoor, Direct Examination. about the pin pose of combining all of these patents? A. The purpose of combining the patents was for the purpose of stopping future ruinous litigation among themselves and likewise for the purpose of controlling the business of making moving pictures and disposing of them." Was anything like that said about the purpose of this organization? A. No, sir. Q. Was anything like that said about the purpose of this organization? A. No, sir. Q. He was asked this question and gave this answer: "Q. Do you recall anything else that was said at the Republican Club during those two days? A. Nothing, except that Mr. Selig said that they — that he would not take five million dollars for his business, where he had been willing to take a half million two months before that." Did you hear Mr. Selig say that or anything like that? A. I did not. Q. On his direct examination (p. 318), he was asked this question and gave the following answer: "Q. Did any other manufacturers, prior to this meeting in January, 1909, say anything, or give any intimation about the formation of the consolidation of interests? A. I had a criminal action pending against a party in Chicago, who was also in the moving picture business, and Mr. Selig and Mr. Spoor and Mr. Kleine waited on me in my office on two different occasions, in an effort to try to persuade me to try to quit prosecuting this party, and stated at that time that they did not want any action or publicity of that nature, owing to the fact that they intended bringing about a condition in the very near future, that would elevate the business considerably, and that if I insisted on prosecuting, that it would act as a deterrent against me when matters of membership in this new proposition were to be considered. I refused to drop this prosecution, however, and after that time, they did not discuss matters openly with me. P>ut that was the nearest reference that I know of as to the formation of the Patents Company up to the announcement of it." Do you recall calling on Mr. Swanson in January, 1909, in reference to any criminal prosecution thai he had on hand? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you call on him on more than one occasion? A. Only this once. Q. What truth, if any, is there in the statement of the witness, Swanson, that I just read to you? You