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 #:
000496
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.

1114 Eeuben Solz, Cross Examination. Company? A. When did I? Just when they came into existence. Q. Early in 1909? A. Somewhere along that time. Q. You never had any complaint until October of 1912, did you? A. I did not complain; no. Q. Did anyone complain of you? A. I got complaints about putting in a different picture than the licensed. Q. In 1909? A. In 1912. Q. But in 1909, you received your licensed pictures day by day, and showed them to the public, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. In 1910, you received your licensed pictures day by day and showed them to the public without any trouble? A. Yes, sir. Q. What kind of a projecting machine do you use in your theatre? A. At that time? Q. In 1909, what kind of a projecting machine did you use? A. Powers. Q. And what did you use in 1910? A. Powers. Q. And in 1912? A. Powers. Q. And what are you using now? A. Powers. Q. Now, what number of Powers did you use in 1912? A. No. 5. Q. Some time in October you showed in your theatre a special film entitled "Kid McCoy's Great Jewel Bobbery," didn't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And later on in October you showed a motion picture entitled "Kegeneration" ? A. That is right; yes. Q. And in November of the same year you ran an independent picture, entitled, "Blanche Walsh in Kesurrection," did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you ran another independent picture entitled "Dublin Dan"? A. That is right. Q. And you ran another one entitled, "Lieutenant Petrosino," did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Those were independent pictures? A. Independent pictures. Features what they call, I guess. Q. Early in November of 1912 did you receive a letter, a copy of which I show you? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Kingsley: I offer in evidence the original. The paper produced is marked in evidence Defendants' Exhibit No. 31, and is as follows: