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 #:
000403
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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 Rosenblui-i, Direct Examination. 381 Q. The name I have just given you is a current production, isn't it? A. About three months old. Q. Are the offerings of the Patents Company licensees which are distributed to the theatres, the exhibitors, the same? I mean, do they offer this theatre that you have last mentioned, the same program as the theatre in the other section of the City? A. Well, under the present conditions or methods of distribution, there is obsolutely no consideration given to the location of the theatre. The most important thing that is tried to be carried out, is the question of the age of a film. That is, The Cxeneral Film Company operating in New York, from observations that I have made and reports from certain exhibitors, they find particularly fault with the manner of distribution, stating that they have no choice in the selection of their program, that they are obligated to take exactly what is alloted to them by the arrangement by dates, and certain makes of pictures to be released on each day. Q. If the Rental Exchange were allowed, or if your exchange was allowed to collect a library of these films, you could supply from time to time, subjects along certain lines on request of the exhibitor? A. Yes, sir. Q. For instance, you have received a number of scientific or educational films in the last few years. If you had collected or retained those, you could supply them to this theatre that wants them, this new theatre — and in the same way you could supply from your library the films of different types to these theatres that prefer the dramatic films. Is that true? A. Yes, sir; there would be no trouble in doing that, but we are not in any position to accumulate any such library so long as the return of the film — Q. (Interrupting) : I understand. Under the rules or the conditions of the trade, it is impossible for you to collect any library because the license agreement requires the return of the film? A. Yes, sir. Q. We will take this theatre, this new theatre desiring the scientific and educational films that you have named. That is a licensed theatre, I take it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that theatre is barred from exhibiting to its patrons any educational or scientific films that may De produced by any one other than the Patents Company's licensees? A. Yes, decidedly so. Q. Just for the purpose of having it on the record, Mr. Rosenbluh, what do you mean by a scenic film? A. A film