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 #:
000563
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. Sroon, Direct Examination. may state just what was said at that interview. A. Mr. Swanson had his brother arrested for stealing goods out of his exchange, and he indicted another Chicago exchange man by the name of Mr. Hopp, and the newspapers were full of it in Chicago, and particularly on account of the fact that Mr. Swanson was prosecuting his own brother, a lot of the Chicago film people around there suggested, or somebody suggested, that Mr. Kleine, Mr. Selig and myself, being manufacturers, see Mr. Swanson and ask him to ease up; that it was not such a serious matter after all, and not to prosecute his brother in that way, he being a member of his own family, and he indicted Hopp. He seemed like he was vindictive at Hopp, and he wanted to get back at Hopp through his brother; and we called on him and told him to ease up on it, or asked him if lie would not, as a favor to us. That was all. That was all that happened. He didn't at the time, and at the time he continued the prosecution, but afterwards lost the case. That was all there was to that; it was in the newspapers and we wanted to take the odor out of the business in Chicago as it was conducted at that time. He was being referred to as a "film man'' and the other man was a film man, because the film business looked pretty rotten. Mr. Grosvenor: Was this a criminal suit? The Witness: Yes, sir, he had his brother arrested for stealing films and machines out of his store, and he blamed Mr. Hopp for his brother's actions, and lie said that Mr. Hopp had influenced his brother to steal this stuff to sell it to him. By Mr. Caldwell : Q. Did either you or the other gentlemen mentioned by him, urge, as a reason for his dropping the criminal prosecution, that you intended bringing about a condition in the very near future that would elevate the business considerably? A. No, we did not. We were only talking for Mr. Swansoms own good in regard to his brother. Q. Did you say to Mr. Swanson, or did either of these other gentlemen say to him in your presence, that it would act as a deterrent against him when matters of