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 000445 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 #:
000445
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 Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 423 jections and motions in reference to this answer that have heretofore been made. A. These rumors persisted, and were carried on until a few weeks before November, when again it was stated that they had positive information now that the license would be cancelled. Again the exhibitors were afraid to make arrangements with our company for fear that they would be cut off from service at any time, and they had already had an experience when the other two licensed exchanges had their licenses cancelled and they found it difficult to make suitable arrangements for their immediate service, and we continually had this matter to contend with. A great many of our customers did leave us from time to time for this reason. When the Court proceedings were started — Q. (Interrupting) : You mean, by your company? A. By our company. Q. After the cancellation of your license in December, 1911? A. Yes, sir — these methods of competition changed to the use of service which was not according to the regular prices and which was supplied to exhibitors who were in competition with exhibitors doing business with our company. Q. In what way were the methods of service changed? A. A man would pay, we will say, fifty dollars — Q. (Interrupting) : An exhibitor? A. Yes, sir, and he would be entitled to a. certain number of reels of various ages for that given amount. Invariably when they tried to carry out this unfair competition they would give other customers in the vicinity of our exhibitor much better service than they would be entitled to for that amount and advertise that fact among the trade that that would be the manner or method that they would pursue in the future and that that exhibitor had better make other arrangements with the General Film Company if he did not want their displeasure. In several instances, these matters have been called to my attention and I have sent messengers to these various theatres and had the program copied and compared. Q. That is, to those theatres whom you state were specially favored by the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir.