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 000447 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 #:
000447
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 Rosbnbluh, Direct Examination. 425 to do business with the Greater New York Film Company. This branch manager, whose name was Mr. Ettris, connected with the 17th Street branch of the General Film Company, wrote a letter to the exhibitor upon receiving notice from him that he intended to terminate his business dealings with that company at the end of the week, that he was surprised that he, as an exhibitor, should make arrangements with a company who does not supply all the specialties that are advertised, and which every up to date exhibitor should have to remain in business, and that if he saw fit to carry out his intention that they would certainly protect their other remaining exhibitors in his vicinity and would supply such service as would not be available to him — Mr. Caldwell : I renew my former objections and motions to this question and answer, and object now on the ground that the witness is giving the contents of letters, without production of the letters. Q. They were the specialties you testified yesterday you were unable to obtain? A. Yes, sir. Several months ago, we had taken, or at least our company had taken on an exhibitor who had made arrangements for a reel run film, and was willing to pay the proper price, in my estimation, for such a film. After having served him for two weeks we received a card from the Motion Picture Patents Company advising us that the license for this exhibitor had not been considered favorably, and that we were to terminate service at the end of that week. This exhibitor then went to the Patents Company to inquire why such service was denied him, and he came back and told me that the information he received at the office of the Patents Company was that he was competing against customers supplied by the General Film Company, and that they had complained to their various branch office managers that unless the service was discontinued that they would have to discontinue business with the General Film Company, and for that reason they thought they would rather discontinue doing business with the Greater New York Film Company. This particular exhibitor then came again at a later date and told me that he was approached by representatives of the General Film Company who assured him if he wanted to do business