Start Over

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 000393 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 #:
000393
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. 371 Q. Mr. Waters was the General Manager of the Gen era! Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the conversation was at the offices of the General Film Company? A. At the offices of the General Film Company. I told him that we had received a letter which no doubt, he knew about, and was supposed to be the cancellation of the license of the Greater New York Film Rental Company. He said he did know something about it. He had heard that such a license was sent out — such a cancellation was sent out. I asked him what was the next step in the procedure. What it meant. Whether we could continue to do business under the arrangement, as my understanding was that with the cancellation of the license, the}' would discontinue the supply of the films, unless some other arrangement was entered into, and asked him — no doubt similar arrangements were carried out at some other exchanges — what the next step was to be, whether our license could not in some way be reinstated. He said, "Well, I told you that sometime ago when you asked me what was the best thing to do, I advised you, and I advised you right. You did not seem to take my advice, and I don't know what else I can do for you now. However, Mr. Fox is a better man to handle the situation. You tell Fox to come over and have a talk with me, and I think we can somehow arrange this matter." I went back to the office and told Mr. Fox of the conversation I had with Mr. Waters, and he said, "All right, I will take the matter up from now on,-' and he did. Q. Was anything said at your second interview with Mr. Waters about this other exchange which you have stated was mentioned as being in the West, and was still licensed? A. Yes, he did say that that exchange was no longer doing business independently. That it had been absorbed by the General Film Company. Q. Thereafter, did your company take up with the General Film Company, the matter of the selling out and accepting the proposition of sale to the General Film Company? A. Mr. Fox Mas acting in that capacity, and he came back after he had spoken with Mr. Kennedy, and he told me that he had practically agreed to certain conditions, and those conditions were being prepared, and that they would reach the office within a few days.