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:

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.

368 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. Company? A. I said I did not know what conversation lie had, but Mr. Fox did tell me he had had a conversation with Mr. Waters, and Mr. Waters went on to outline what the conversation was, and stated that he explained to Mr. Fox that it was about time that he made arrangements now to dispose of this business. The Greater New York Film Rental Company was the only one that was left, with the exception of one small concern out West, with which he expected negotiations would be closed shortly, and that it was the proper time now if he expected to do anything at all, to enter into those negotiations, since he did not think that the Greater New York Film Rental Company would be able to hold out against a company like the General Film Company, which has such large resources — in fact he mentioned that it was a f 2,000,000 corporation — against a small concern like ours, and we had absolutely no chance. And he told him that, and was telling me that now in all friendliness, that now was the time to dispose of it. I told him we were getting along fairly well down there, and if he could see his way clear to forgetting that we were in business, and let us alone, I personally would consider it a favor, and I did not see in any way where I affected their carrying out the methods of their business as they thought. We were doing our own business in our own way, and thought we would rather continue doing it in our own way rather than become one of the branches of the General Film Company. He said that he did not think that was possible, since the Directors and men connected with the General Film Company, had their plans laid for the exclusive control of the business of the United States, and they would not consider having us as a competitor, in fact, he thought that would be a very fine condition to be in, that he himself would have liked to be in such a position, that although he had accepted $100,000 for the sale of his business, he would gladly repay that $100,000 and give $100,000 in addition for the advantage or privilege of having a license that could not be cancelled. Q. He had owned one of the New York exchanges which had sold out to the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. And he stated that he would not have sold either if it had not been for the fact that it was pointed out to him that it was to his advantage to sell with a clause in his license agreement which was revocable on fourteen days' notice, and after the