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 #:
000394
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.

1012 Thomas H. Bates, Cross Examination. 1 By Mr. Kingsley : Q. I show you a letter dated October 14th, 1911, and ask you if it is in your handwriting? A. Yes, it is. Q. Addressed to the Motion Picture Patents Company, is it? A. Yes, sir; it is in my handwriting. Mr. Kingsley : I offer it in evidence. The paper offered in evidence by counsel was marked by the Examiner "Defendants' Exhibit No. 14," and is as follows: 2 Defendants' Exhibit No. 14. 133 Moreland St., Rox., Mass. Boston, Oct. 14th, 1911. Dear Sir: I am compelled to write you about a matter that I believe you will concede is to me an injustice. I had made a Moving Picture of the athletic acts of my little son who had exhibited remarkable strength. He was only 22 months old when he could raise with one hand a 20 lb. dumb Bell and do acts upon the trapeze marvellous for one so young. He appeared to large and enthusiastic audiences in Boston and Portland Maine. I lecture and explain to the people the features as they are unwound from the Film, and present the child to the people. The act is a vaudeville act, but your agent has interposed and threatened to withdraw the syndicate Films from any theatre permitting me to lecture and show my film. This is Blacklisting me and taking the bread out of the mouths of my family, because I don't make films for sale. The one I own is the only one of its kind in the country, and was made by a local photographer here, for myself alone, and how he could say that it was a competitive film is beyond understanding. My use of the film is to explain the acts of the child, and describe his training. He has now by his act forbidden me to be employed by any theatre using your films, virtually telling me to starve. I am sure you do not approve of this and write to you a concise statement of the case. I am in receipt of letters from managers who would employ me were it otherwise. I