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 #:
000389
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:
June 13, 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, Cross Examination. 1007 Q. Did you ever look at the mechanism of it at all? A. No, sir. Q. You never took any interest in that? A. No, sir, not in the machine. Q. You were satisfied when a clear-cut picture was put upon the screen? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who was the operator who made these picture? A. Mr. Bosworth. Q. How do you spell it? A. (spelling) : B-o-s-w-o-r-t-h. Bosworth. Q. Where does he live? A. He had his place on Bloomfield Street in the Wesylan Building'. Q. Did you happen to know, Mr. Bates, what sort of camera he was using? A. I did not. Q. You didn't pay any attention to that either? A. Well the only thing I know about that was he told me he had bought it from Mr. Keith. Q. Is he the amusement Keith, you mean by that? A. Yes, sir, the amusement Keith, theatre man. Q. Now, you were sure that this picture was taken in June, of 1911? A. Well, we took it at different times, We couldn't take it all at the same time ; we had several sittings because sometimes the temperature was not right, and the conditions were not favorable for the taking of a picture, so we took a little at a time, and would go on that way until finally we perfected the picture. Q. Prior to the taking of the picture, had you ever exhibited the boy without the picture? A. Never. Q. Had you ever lectured upon him without the picture? A. No, sir. Q. After taking the picture, did you lecture upon the boy in connection with the motion picture? A. Yes, I did. Q. When these pictures were exhibited at the theatre you received how much per week, on an average? A. Well, never less than fifty dollars a week. Q. And sometimes as high as seventy-five dollars, you stated? A. Yes, sir; as high as seventy-five dollars. Q. Now, when you made an engagement with a theatre the price paid included the use of the moving picture, including the services of the boy and of yourself? A. Well, no, not the services of the boy, because the boy could not be put in service, for the reason that there is a child labor law in Massachusetts that prohibits that.