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 000395 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 #:
000395
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. 373 Q. Please describe what a special feature is, so that it will appear on the record. A. Up to the period of 1911, special features were termed such pictures as were not among the regular releases of the manufacturers. Anything that they turned out in addition to the regular output, which each one was allotted, or had agreed to turn out, either four or five releases a week, they called special releases, such as the Hudson-Fulton Celebration, or Roosevelt's Landing in America, or the African Hunt of Roosevelt. Anything that they turned out, of topical subjects, they termed "special." They advertised the release of a "special" and asked for the order — Q. (Interrupting) : Who? A. The manufacturers. Which the standing order did not include. Thereafter, the releases, know as "multiple releases," which consisted of two reels to a subject, or three reels to a subject, became very popular with the exhibitors. Q. And were known as "specials?" A. And they termed those as "specials." Although previously they were given out among the regular releases. Whenever a manufacturer would make one of these long lengths he would turn it out, in his release day, on Monday, and Wednesday; he would turn out one part on Monday, and the second part, or part two, on Wednesday, thereby giving it in the regular releases. When they saw there was a great demand for these special reels, they began to term those as "specials" and then sold the exclusive rights to the General Film Company, and we could not get any of them. Q. Was there a large demand on the part of your exhibitors for these subjects? A. Exceptionally large. Q. And the obtaining of the films on the regular releases you were obtaining during this period, by virtue of the injunction of the Court? A. Yes, sir. Q. But in spite of that, you were not getting these subjects? A. No, sir. I might say that the special features were supplied to exhibitors under a special arrangement which meant that if each exchange did not buy a "special," that exhibitors of one or more exchanges could apply to the exchange that did have these specials, and was permitted to be supplied under a special bulletin that was sent out, but our exhibitors, although they applied to the General Film Company for these particular subjects that I mentioned as being two and three reel releases, could not obtain tbem.