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 000398 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 #:
000398
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.

1016 Thomas H. Bates, Cross Examination. Q. Now, this typewritten article, entitled, "Petitioner's Exhibit No. 181" — A. (interrupting) : Yes, sir. Q. And which you stated this morning you did not write? A. Yes. Q. You recognize it, do you now, as something you dictated? A. Yes, sir, I dictated it. Q. So when you said, "I didn't write it," or words to that effect, you didn't want to be understood that it was not an emanation from your brain? A. No, sir, not at all; I am perfectly willing to be responsible for it. Mr. Grosvenor: It is my recollection that on direct examination it was brought out that that letter now held by Mr. Kingsley, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 181, was written under your direction? The Witness: Yes, sir. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Did you ask anyone else to sign this? A. Not that letter; no, sir. Q. Did you ask them to sign any other similar letter? A. Yes, I did; at the time that letter was sent I was under engagement with this manager, and he withdrew the engagement. Q. Did you have other copies of this stricken off? A. No, sir. Q. Did you have similar statements written out in typewriting? A. Yes, sir, I had one other one, I think; one other one. Q. This is dated October 13, 1911? A. Yes, sir. Q. I notice that you refer to the "New York Syndicate of Moving Picture Films Company"? A. Yes, I didn't understand the name exactly at that time. Q. At that time you had already written to the Motion Picture Patents Company, had you not? A. Yes, sir, but I kind of got the names confused in my memory. It is sometimes called the Motion Picture Patents Company, and sometimes the New York Film Trust Company, and sometimes called one thing, and sometimes another; and sometimes the United Film Company, and sometimes another company, and so on, but that manager was using the Motion