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 #:
000405
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.

Charles W. Boyer, Cross Examination. 1023 Cross examination by Mr. Kingsley: 1 Q. I show you a letter dated January 24th, 1913, and ask you if it is your letter and contains your business stamp at the bottom (handing paper to witness)? A. (witness examining paper) : Yes, sir, that is my letter and my stamp. Mr. Kingsley : I offer it in evidence. The paper offered is marked Defendants' Exhibit No. 17, and is as follows: Defendants' Exhibit No. 17. 2 THE BOYER THEATRES Under Personal Direction of Chas W. Boyer, Hagerstown, Md. ( Other theatres listed. ) Hagerstown, Maryland, 1/24/13. Motion Picture Patents Co., 80 Fifth Ave., New York City. 3 Gentlemen : Replying to yours of Jan. 22d, beg to advise that now that I know where I stand, will in the future only use motion pictures licensed by your Company, in the Rosedale Theatre, Chambersburg. Yours very truly, CHAS W. BOYER. 4 This letter from Hagerstown, Md., where any reply should be sent. Rubber stamp Received 1913 Jan 25 AM 10 16 Ans J. B. D. P. 1/28/13