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 000404 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 #:
000404
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.

382 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. which does not reproduce a comedy or drama but is a view, for instance, of some part of the city where there is action. Q. For instance, a river, or taken from a boat going up a river, or on a bridge? Is that what you call a scenic film? A. Yes, sir; those are termed in the trade scenic pictures. Q. You were then obliged at the beginning of this Patents Company arrangement, to return all the film which you had theretofore collected? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you get any allowance or any consideration for the return of that film? A. No, sir. Q. It was made a condition of obtaining licensed film thereafter? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much was the value of the film which you were obliged to return about that time? A. The purchase value was about three hundred thousand dollars. Q. Was a large part of it in good condition? A. Yes, sir. Q. And some of those films, if you now owned them, you could furnish to this theatre up here that you have just mentioned, or any other theatre which requested certain topics? A. So long as they did not have a picture before they would be glad to take it any time, if it is the kind of subject that best suited their audiences. Q. Mr. Rosenbluh, you have been subpoenaed in this case, have you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have produced some papers or statements ; first, a list giving the names of the manufacturers with the prices of film in the year 1907. Is this a list of manufacturers and importers from whom you purchased in that year, and does the list give the prices as shown by your books for that year? (Handing paper to witness.) A. (Witness examining paper.) Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer it in evidence. The paper is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 91, and is as follows: Petitioner's Exhibit No. 94. Names of Manufacturers with prices of film, year, 1907: Biograph Co., 11 cents. Edison Mfg Co., 11 cents. Essanay Film Mfg. Co., 9 cents. Gaumont Co., 10 and 11 cents.