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 000446 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 #:
000446
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.

424 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. Mr. Caldwell: I desire to object here to the entire series of questions and answers of the witness that have followed my last objections, on the same grounds that I have heretofore stated, and on the further ground that the witness is now being led. The Witness: In a particular case brought to my attention in New Haven, one of the theatres known as the Grand Opera House Theatre, having about 2,000 seats, and another new theatre opened up by Poli, who has a number of theatres through the New England States, and through Pennsylvania — Q. He has a vaudeville stock company? A. Yes, sir, and opened up a large theatre, and made arrangements for service to be supplied by our company, so that they could be easily supplied between the accounts that I already had from theatres who were in close competition. Q. Who do you mean by other theatres? A. Poli's theatres. I did take up that service and had been doing so for several weeks when one of the accounts which the General Film Company had been supplying came out with four first run films, a service that would ordinarily be worth, I should judge, about $300 or more; this theatre had a seating capacity of 299, which from my experience I know to be impossible to pay any such price for service. Q. Was this .f.°»00 per week? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Caldwell: It is understood that my objections apply to all of these questions, as well as my motions to all of the answer of the witness. Mr. Grosvenor: Yes. The Witness: We had the names suplied to us each day of what pictures had been shown there and it kept up for several weeks. The statement was made by the branch manager that he would continue to do so until he would put the Greater New York Film Company out of business. Then another exhibitor in New Haven showed a willingness to do business with the Greater New York Film Company. Q. You mean a customer of yours? A. No, another enstomer of the General Film Company showed a willingness