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 #:
000396
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.

374 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. The managers replied that they had orders from the main office not to supply those to customers doing business with the Greater New York Film Rental Company. Q. Let me see if I understand that. The rule under the license agreements is that a customer or a licensed exhibitor shall not get films from more than one rental exchange? A. Yes, sir. Q. But that rule is varied in the case of "specials" and an exhibitor is allowed to get "specials" from other than his regular rental exchange, where his regular rental exchange does not supply those subjects? A. Yes, sir. Q. You were not able to get these "specials?" A. No, sir. Q. And you state your customers were unable to get them from the General Film Company. Is that correct? A. No, sir, they could not get them. They were told that if they made their arrangements for a complete supply, they could then be supplied with the "specials" also. Mr. Caldwell : That is objected to as hearsay. Q. I show you an illustrated advertisement of the Kalem Company and ask you whether that is an advertisement of one of the special features to which you refer (handing paper to witness)? A. (Witness examining paper): Yes, sir. I might add that some of the companies, even now that Ave are getting some of these "specials," are still continuing to advertise in this form, that these "specials" can be obtained only through the General Film Company. Q. You are referring to the words that appear on this circular which I show you, stating "Controlled exclusively by the General Film Company?" A. Yes, sir. And although the General Film Company did not advertise before this period any of their releases, they started in to advertise in the trade papers, large type and double headings, advertising the General Film Company special features. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer that in evidence. The paper is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 93, and is as follows: