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 000493 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 #:
000493
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.

J. Henkel Henry, Cross Examination. 1111 ing our brief business relations and with kindest regards, I am Yours, etc., P. S. — Remember I will continue using the service for the remainder of the week. You will accordingly instruct Mr. Wine to express his Saturday night Show to you, but let the Friday night show come on to me. Trusting that this is giving you ample time to straighten matters out and that same will not inconvenience you in the least. This will cancel the "Cinderella" feature which you had booked for me on the 14th inst. Although if not against your rules I could use it. In this event I would want you to advise me at once so that I can get out proper advertising for same. 1 By Mr. Kingsley: Q. This letter which I show you, marked Defendants' Exhibit 30, dated February 8th, 1912, is a copy of a letter which you sent to the General Film Company at Washington, D. C, on that date, is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. The original letter was signed by you, was it not? A. Signed by me. Q. You say that you never received the letter cancelling your license from the Patents Company? A. Not until after I wrote this letter. Both the same date. Q. Then as a matter of fact, after you had been granted a license three times to use a projecting machine, you abandoned your license and used the machine without a license? A. Yes, sir; because I so understood it from the Association. The general officers. That that was my privilege. But so long as I was running their pictures, that I would not run independent pictures, which I never did. But a man, as I understand it, had the privilege to run and change every week if he so prefers. Q. What type of machine do you use? A. Standard American. Q. Any special type or number? A. I think it was No. 3 or No. 4. I ran at the last a No. 4. I had two or three machines in the course of my two or three years' operation.