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 000443 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 #:
000443
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.

Louis Bosexbluh, Direct Examination. 421 invariably when be applied to one of the brandies of the 1 General Film Company he had no difficulty in being reinstated— it seemed to favor the General Film Company in the reinstatement of customers; and it got to be so that it was rumored in the trade, especially by some of the solicitors going around to see customers that had their licenses cancelled, making the statement, "Why, if you come with the General Film Company, we will get your license without any difficulty." Mr. Caldwell: I object to the question as calling for and stating matters obviously not within the personal knowledge of the witness and hearsay, and I move to strike the answer out. Q. Have you finished your answer, all you had to say on that subject? A. We found that those things were carried out, because a short space intervened between the date of cancellation and the date of notice to resume service, when it was an account cancelled by the General Film Company, and when he made application for service to the General Film Company, although the customer of the o Greater New York Film Rental Company. In most cases, when the man showed a willingness to do business with the Greater New York Film Company, they were not quite so anxious to consider his application, and told him to come around some other time, or exacted an agreement to continue the use of licensed film for a period of time, or to pay a certain number of weeks' royalties in advance, to insure that his intentions were to remain a licensee. Mr. Caldwell: Objection is made upon the same grounds to this question and answer as heretofore 4 stated. The Witness: In several cases we had to pay these advance royalties for the exhibitor to be able to ^ot his license reinstated. Mr. Caldwell: I make the same objections to this statement of the witness, and also the motion to strike it out.