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 #:
000399
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. 1017 Picture Patents Company's films, and had made the engagement and cancelled the engagement. Q. I notice that in your letters to the Patents Company you refer to your part of the exhibition in the theatres as a "vaudeville act." A. Yes, I called the attention of the Motion Picture Patents Company to that title, thinking that, perhaps, they would be willing to overlook the other because of the use of the film, by allowing it to go on as a vaudeville act. Q. You thought it was a vaudeville act when you called it one? A. No. Q. You did not? A. No, sir, it could not be. Q. Did you mean to make them think it was a vaudeville act if you didn't think so? A. It was a motion picture, of course. It couldn't be a vaudeville act, but if they allowed it to go by or under the name of a vaudeville act — Q. You were willing that they do so? A. Yes, sir, I was trying to see if they would do it. Q. And you were helping them let it go by as a vaudeville act? A. No, they understood the business, and if they wanted to consider it that way, it was up to them to do so. Q. You lectured, you say? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the child came forward on the stage? A. Not frequently. You see, I was amenable to the law, and I couldn't take the child upon the stage and connect him as a part of the performance, but I could take him from the audience as a spectator, and with the courtesy of the management let him stand on the stage in front of the audience, and identify him with his picture. Q. And did you always do that? A. No, sir. Q. Did you show in other States? A. Yes, sir, in Maine. Q. In the Stale of Maine you exhibited him right along with the film, and lectured on him at the same time? A. Yes, sir. Q. And he came on and did the actual act you saw in the picture? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in that case it was an actual vaudeville act, because the boy went th rough the exact vaudeville acts that are indicated on the film? M|r. Grosvexor : I object to that as an improper statement of counsel for defendants, and implying