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 1
Leaf #:
000394
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:
May 23, 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.

372 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. Mr. Caldwell: The witness' conversation with Mr. Fox last testified to is objected to. Q. Did your company receive a notice from the Patents Company that its notice of cancellation had been revoked? A. Yes, sir. The following morning, it was on a Saturday morning — Mr. Fox's conversation was on a Friday, and on Saturday morning, we received a letter from the Motion Picture Patents Company, which I opened, and the letter read that the cancellation was withdrawn. Q. Was the sale of your company to the General Film Company successfully consummated? A. No, sir. Q. Will you state whether or not you received any subsequent or later notice of the cancellation of the license, from the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. We again received a similar letter like the first, cancelling the license, only changing the date, instead of December 4th, to December 25th. Q. Before December 25th arrived you consulted counsel, and obtained an injunction from the Court, a temporary injunction, stopping the cancellation of the license? A. Yes, sir. Messrs. Rogers & Rogers were — Mr. Caldwell (Interrupting) : That question is objected to. The Witness (Continuing) : Were successful in getting an injunction, under which injunction the manufacturers continued to supply the Greater New York Film Rental Company. Q. Did you subsequently institute a suit in the United States Court, in order to protect what you deemed your rights in the matter, and to insure the delivery of the films to your company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you obtain an injunction in that suit? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Rosenbluh, has the service you have received from the manufacturers since this notice of cancellation been as satisfactory as the service that your company received prior to September, 1911 — how about the "special features?" A. We did not receive any special features from the manufacturers, although we applied for them.