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 (1913)

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:
1913
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 2
Leaf #:
000255
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.

Charles H. Balsley, Redirect Examination. 873 By Mr. Kingsley: Q. When was it you took the pictures of the school children? A. The latter part of May. Q. When was it you exhibited them? A. They were exhibited, I think, in July, the first time. Q. Exhibited in July the first time? A. Yes, sir, in 1912. Q. What theatre did you exhibit them at? A. The Soicin Theatre. Q. Where was that? A. Connellsville. Q. And did you exhibit them in Connellsville before you exhibited them in Uniontown? A. They were never exhibited at Uniontown. Q. So that all the exhibition you have had of these pictures has been in Connellsville? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many times have you exhibited them there? A. Twice. Q. You mean on two days, two separate days? A. They ran a whole week the first time. Q. Two separate complete weeks? A. No. One week the first time and three days the year later. Q. Both at the same theatre? A. Both at the same theatre. Redirect examination by Mr. Grosvbnor: Q. Mr. Balsley, look at these letters which I show you, and state whether these are the letters relating to obtaining a camera by you, with respect to which you testified on cross examination? (Handing papers to witness.) A. (witness examining papers) : Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer those in evidence. The papers referred to are marked respectively Petitioner's Exhibit No. 162, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 163, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 161, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 165, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 166 and are as follows: