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 000442 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 #:
000442
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.

120 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 1 authorized to perform these acts, the day and year first above written. MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY By Frank L. Dyer, President. Attest : George F. Scull, [Seal.] Secretary. 2 GAUMONT COMPANY, By L. Gaumont, President. Attest : H. Blache, [Seal.] Secretary. The Witness, William Pelzer, was excused until 10 :30 o'clock A. M., January 24, 1913. Thereupon, LOUIS ROSENBLUH, resumed the stand. Direct examination (continued) by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Mr. Rosenbluh, during the period that you have been operating an exchange licensed by the Patents Company, have the customers, that is, the exhibitors who have taken service from you, had their licenses cancelled from time to time by the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have such licenses been cancelled at times since the incorporation of the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is, since April, 1910? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you made efforts from time to time to have such exhibitors, your customers, reinstated? A. Yes, sir. Q. State what you have done in this connection, and what effect, if any, the organization of the General Film Company, or its branches, in competition with you has had upon such efforts as you have made? A. In the majority of cases where a cancellation of a customer's license of the Greater New York Film Company, was made, the customer found it difficult to have its license reinstated, and