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 #:
000399
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.

Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 377 with him, and with Mr. Kennedy, to talk with regard to the cancellation of the license. Q. To get that cancellation revoked? A. Yes. And during the time that I tried to get Mr. Fox on the 'phone, after Mr. Berst had consented to see Mr. Fox, whenever I could make a suitable appointment or arrangement, it took me about half an hour to locate Mr. Fox, not knowing where he was at that time, I had to try his house, and then one or two theatres before I could locate him. In the meantime, I sat conversing with Mr. Berst, and some of the points that were touched upon was the reason of the cancellation of the license. I asked him if he knew. He said, while there was not any particular reason, of course, the reason has been given, but he does not ascribe that to have been the actual reason — the main reason was that the Directors had received reports from the managers, through the branch managers — Q. (Interrupting) : Branch managers of whom? A. Of the General Film Company, that it was impossible to in crease the prices of rentals satisfactorily so long as the Greater New York Rental Company was in the field. That when they attempted to increase the price for an exhibitor, invariably the exhibitor would say that if they did, since the Greater New York Film Rental Company has not increased its prices, they would go there to do their business, and rather than drive all the business our way, by which they were afraid the Greater New York Film Rental Company would get too much advantage of them, they decided not to increase the prices as they would otherwise have done if we had not been in the field; and Mr. Berst stated that under those conditions, it was against the interests ot the General Film Company to allow us to be in the field in competition with the General Film Company. I told him then, that I did not make any effort to undercut prices, we were doing business in the same way that we had done heretofore; if the business came to us, we purchased film, for the reason to be able to supply them, and it was only natural that we should take them on, but we did not go out particularly undercutting any prices. He said, "Well, the General Film Company found it was necessary to got you out of the way, and you were offered a chance to come in witli us, which Mr. Fox refused, and I don't know what I can do for him now. I am not a member of the Patents