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 000390 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 #:
000390
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.

1008 Thomas H. Bates, Cross Examination. 1 Q. Could you produce him at all? A. The only way he could be produced so as to evade the responsibility of the lavr was to have him in the audience as a spectator of his own picture, and invite him from the audience to the stage aud up on the platform, and let the audience look at him. Q. And you always did that? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you lectured? A. Yes, sir. Q. The entertainment which you gave was an entertainment consisting of the motion picture of the boy, your own lecture, interesting and instructive, and the fact that the boy was brought forward as demonstrating the success of 2 your method of rearing children? A. Well, no, I don't claim that honor — my method of raising children — I am afraid I might make quite a number of benedicts jealous if you give me that honor. Q. At any rate, the boy was a part of the entertainment, and your lecture was an instructive feature of it? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: In the same way as is done with the use of moving picture films, isn't that true? 3 The Witness: Yes, sir. By Mr. Kingslby: Q. Now, you wrote to the Edison people, didn't you, asking them their rates for making a motion picture for you? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And is this the letter which you received in reply to your first communication to the Edison people? A. (examing paper) : Yes, sir. 4 Mr. Kingslby: I offer it as Defendant's Exhibit No. 11. The paper referred to was marked by the Examiner "Defendants' Exhibit No. 11," and is as follows :