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 #:
000608
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

3050 Siegmuxd Lubix, Direct Examination. Yes, I had two, one in Philadelphia, and one in Norfolk. Norfolk didn't pay, and I closed it up. Q. What became of your rental exchange in Philadelphia? A. I sold it to the General Film Company. Q. Did you have anything to do with the General Film Company buying the property of some other exchanges after it was formed? A. Nothing whatever. Q. Had your Philadelphia exchange made any money? A. No. Q. Were you interested in the theatrical business at the time you sold your Philadelphia exchange? A. I think 1 had some theatres. Q. Do you know Lewis Swaab, of Philadelphia? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever have any talk with him in which you stated to him that you and he would control the exchange business of Philadelphia? Mr. Grosvenor: Objected to, as leading. The Witness : I never did. He didn't talk to me for years after he was in my employ, and since he left me I don't think I have seen him twice. Q. When did he leave you? A. He left me and started himself a rental business. Q. When he started a rental business of his own, were you then on friendly terms with him? A. For a long time I didn't talk with him, at all. Q. So you had not spoken to Swaab for several years? A. Yes, sir, but maybe after a while I talked to him, but never made any such remark that I would control it. Q. Did you send for him to come to see you and talk about selling out his exchange? A. I never did. Whereupon, at 12:10 o'clock P. M., March 11th, 1914, the hearing was adjourned until 10 :30 o'clock, A. M., March 12th, 1913, to be resumed at Room 159, Hotel Manhattan, New York City.