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 #:
000470
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:
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.

1088 Edgar Thorp, Cross Examination. burgh, and took it up with Mr. Kinson, their manager, personally. Q. And he told you he was unable to supply you with feature films? A. Yes, sir. Q. On Thursday nights? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were convinced that you could not get them from him? A. Yes, sir. Q. That you couldn't get them from him at all? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were still licensed by the Patents Company, were you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you intend to abide by your license, or to get feature films whenever or wherever you could? A. We did up to the time we had the extra films booked. Q. And when was it that you booked the extra films? A. I think the films were booked from June to August 11th on each Thursday night. Q. And it was on August 9th you received this (letter) ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had you been running special features on Thursday nights during the entire month of July? A. Yes, sir; I think so. Q. What kind of projecting machine did you use in your establishment? A. Motiograph machine. Q. And how long had you been running them at that place? A. Since 20th of December, 1909. Q. Now, "The Burning of Kome" was a special feature, which you exhibited at your house, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that was an unlicensed motion picture? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you ran that on the projecting machine in your house upon which you were paying a royalty? A. Yes, sir. Q. And "The Coronation of King George and Queen Mary" was a special feature, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that was an unlicensed Independent film? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you ran that upon the licensed projecting machine which you used in your house? A. On the Motiograph machine. Q. Yes; did that machine when you purchased it have a license plate on it? A. I don't know; I have not been per