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 000444 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 #:
000444
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.

422 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 1 Q. Are there any ways in which the business of your company has been affected through the creation of the General Film Company or any other methods of competition of the latter company, which have affected your company? A. Persistent rumors were constantly afloat with regard to the condition of the business of the Greater New York Film Rental Company. At one time it was said that their license was to be cancelled within a very short period of time. Mr. Caldwell: I object to that question and answer as involving entirely hearsay and incompetent. Q. When was this? A. It started about 1910, about July and August, 1910. Q. Were two of the New York licensed exchanges cancelled about that time? Mr. Caldwell: I object to this question on the same grounds heretofore stated, and because leading. o A. Yes, sir. Q. And about that time others were sold out to the General Film Company? Mr. Caldwell: I object to that question on the same ground. A. Yes, sir. Q. Please continue, Mr. Rosenbluh? A. Exhibitors approached me and asked whether or not it was true that we were to lose our license since they wanted to be pro4 tected; that they had been approached by representatives who claimed that they represented the General Film Company and had advanced information that the Greater New York Film Company's license was to be cancelled, and that they had better make arrangements immediately and come in while there was plenty of goods on hand to supply them; that is, if they waited that they might not be in position to get as good an arrangement after the choice goods were taken up. Mr. Caldwell: I desire to make the same ob