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 000397 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 #:
000397
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. Rates, Cross Examination. 1015 Defendants' Exhibit No. 16. 1 (Copy.) August 26th, 1912. Mr. Thomas H. Bates, 139 Roxbury Street, Roxbury, Mass. Dear Sir: We find it difficult to reconcile your letter of August 16th with ours of January 10th, 1912. We offered to license ~ your picture after taking considerable trouble to investigate the circumstances in your case. Yours truly, MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY By HNM/ACL. File, J. B. By Mr. Kingsley : Q. So the Attorney General has the originals of these letters sent you by the Motion Picture Patents Company, and also copies of the letters which you wrote? A. Well, he is supposed to have them; yes, sir. Q. So you were slightly mistaken this morning when you stated you did not have a copy available of the first letter you wrote to the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. I may have been in error in that respect, and I may not have a copy, but I will look for it. Q. At any rate, the Attorney General has it? A. That letter, of course, may have been omitted; I may not, of course, have sent him that letter. Q. You don't know whether you did or not? A. I won't be positive, but I am pretty sure there are but very few but what he did have copies of. Q. Well, I rather thought so. A. Yes, sir, there may be one, though.