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 000391 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 1
Leaf #:
000391
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.

Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 369 matter had been put to him in that light, he thought thai it was advisable to accept the offer that was given to him, and in turn, he advised every man that asked his opinion, and he was willing to do the same for me, to advise me, to accept what money is offered. And then I thanked him for his information and left him. Q. There was a clause in this license exchange agreement, between the rental exchanges and the Patents Company, which provided for the cancellation of the agreement on fourteen day's notice, the cancellation being without cause? A. Yes, sir. Q. That was the clause which you understood him to be referring to? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, what next transpired in connection with this matter? A. About November fourteenth, a Mr. Braden, whom I knew to be connected with the Motion Picture Patents Company, having had several conversations with him at the office of the Patents Company, and across the wire, whom I knew to be of some authority in the Motion Picture Patents Company— announced himself — Mr. Willis (Interrupting) : Just one moment. I enter an objection to the witness" testimony with reference to what was said by Mr. Braden, unless the witness is able to show in what official capacity the gentleman represented the corporation to which he said he belonged. Mr. Grosvenor: That, I think, will appear as the testimony goes on. Will you read, kindly, what the witness has said? (The stenographer repeats the answer of the witness. ) Q. He announced himself at your office? A. At our office. I asked him to step inside, and he took out an envelope from his pocket and he said, "I am sorry to be a messenger of sad news. I suppose that you won't like the contents." I opened the envelope and it contained a letter of the Motion Picture Patents Company, on its paper, or its letterhead, on which was Clause 10 of the License Agreement, and stated that they had taken the right under that clause to notifv us of our