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 000565 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 #:
000565
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.

George K. Spoor, Direct Examination. 3007 for making' titles, and they also copied films. I was called on at one time by Mr. John Hardin, the agent of the Edison Company, to go down to his place and look at a copy of an Edison film— he thought it was a dupe — and to pass on it. I did so, together with Mr. Rock and some other men, and it really was a dupe, and the dupe had been made by Baker or Miller of the Globe Film Exchange, in i heir title place. Q. Did you know, also, of an exchange operated in Chicago in 1908 and 1909, called the "Chicago Film Exchange?'' A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was the owner or operator of that exchange? A. Max Lewis was one of the owners. Q. Did you know what reputation thai exchange had in Chicago? A. They also conducted a duping plant in a building next door to their offices, to their exchange offices. Q. Was or was not that considered a disreputable prac tice in the business? A. Yes, it was. Q. Then from your knowledge of the.;. three exchanges would you say they were reputable or disreputable? A. I would say they were disreputable from that, Q. Did you know anything about the financial status of those exchanges, or either of them? Was it good or bad? A. It was not good. Q. Do you happen to know whether either of those exchanges was subsequently licensed by the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. I believe not. I believe they were not. Q. Do you recall whether, the night that Swanson spent at the Republican Club, to which reference has just been had. was the night preceding the convention of the F. S. A. at the Imperial Hotel? A. No, there had been a convention during that day, and they were going to, I guess, have another meeting the next morning, of some kind, but they had had their convention that very day. Whereupon, at 11:40 o'clock A. M., March 10th, 1911, the hearings were adjourned until 10:30 o'clock A. M., March 11th, 191-1, to be resumed at Boom 150, Manhattan Hotel, New York City.