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 000400 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 #:
000400
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.

1018 Thomas H. Bates, Redirect Examination. something directly contrary to the fact, and to the testimony given, and therefore, not proper. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Isn't it true that the boy went through the same acts that were indicated on the film, or substantially the same acts, I mean? A. Well, not all of them. Q. Part of them, substantially the same acts? A. He did the lifting, that was the only part which he did. Q. But he did act on the stage in connection with these motion pictures which were being shown? A. Merely to identify him with the picture and film. Q. And at the same time you lectured as lucidly and entertainingly as you knew how? A. Just told the audience this was the boy whose picture was on the film. Q. What is your business in life? A. I have followed mining a good deal, and also newspaper work. Q. Were you a reporter, or an editor? A. I have been both. Q. On daily newspapers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Bates, did you regard this as your business, the exhibiting of this film and boy? A. No, of course not; but I considered it a gold mine, and that the public would like to see, perhaps, such an extraordinary thing. Q. You never were an exhibitor before, were you? A. No, never. Q. Are you still in the newspaper business? A. Well, occasionally only. I am more interested, now, in promoting mines, and selling mining stock. Redirect examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Bates, I show you the Defendants1 Exhibit No. 14, being letter dated October 14, 1911. Please state to whom that letter was sent by you ; was it sent to the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. Yes, this was addressed to the Motion Picture Patents Company. Q. And that was sent by you to that company after you had made repeated and continuous efforts to show your films in the theatres in Boston which were known as licensed theatres? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, after reciting in this letter your difficulties in showing these films, you say (reading from paper) : "I am