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)

Page scan 000357 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:
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 #:
000357
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.

Thomas H. Bates, Direct Examination. 975 ton said he objects to your picture being used." He said, "I am using the trust pictures, and I cannot give your picture an engagement." I said, "That is the reason?" He said, "Yes, that is the reason." I left him. Then I went from there to Mr. Campbell, I think, who was managing the Marlboro Theatre at Marlboro. I told him the circumstances and he said, "I will give you an engagement." I said, "You are not using trust pictures?" He said, "No." He said, "I am using the independent pictures." So we took an engagement at Marlboro. Q. Did you try to exhibit your film in every one of the licensed theatres in Boston? A. I did. Q. Were you able to get the pictures in any of those theatres? A. No theatre using the trust companies' pictures at all. I could only get into the theatres using independent pictures. Q. Did you subsequently have some correspondence with the Motion Picture Patents Company in connection with this subject? A. I did. Q. I show you a letter on the letterhead of the Motion Picture Patents Company, dated October 20th, 1911. Is that a letter received by you from them on that subject? (Handing paper to witness.) A. (witness examining paper) : It is. Mr. Geosvenor: I offer it in evidence. The paper offered is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 177, and is as follows: Petitioner's Exhibit No. 177. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY 80 Fifth Avenue, New York. October 20th, 1911. Mr. Thomas H. Bates, 133 Moreland Street, Roxbury, Mass. Dear Sir: — Replying to yours of the 14th, the tonus of the license issued by ns for the use of projecting machines covered by