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)

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 #:
000448
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:
May 23, 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.

426 Louis Eosenbluh, Direct Examination. with the General Film Company, he could procure licensed film. This exhibitor at a later date came to me again and said if such was the case, that if the General Film Company could supply him and we could not do so, and asked that we make application for him, and I did write such a letter to the Motion Picture Patents Company, and we never received any reply, and this exhibitor has never received any licensed film since. Mr. Caldwell : My objections heretofore made apply to all of these questions and my motions to all of the answers. Mr. Grosvenor: All right, Mr. Willis: For the reason that it is an attempt to repeat conversation that he had with a third party being hearsay. Mr. Grosvenor: This examination is for the purpose of showing the conditions in the trade, and the difficulties the witness encountered in doing the business he has described. The Witness: Another instance brought to my particular attention was, several weeks ago, an exhibitor had bought a place. In that theatre, the previous owner had violated some of the rules of the Patents Company, and for that reason the license was cancelled. He, as a new owner, applied, after running the place for about six months, to be supplied with licensed service. We made the application for the privilege to supply in the regular way, and the privilege was granted on the assurance that it was a new owner, and proper proof being shown that it was a new owner, and not one that had violated before. Immediately after starting the film service, the exhibitors in the vicinity, who were then supplied by the General Film Company, approached this man and said that they were told to inform him that unless he made his arrangements with the General Film Company, he would be a sorry man for having made his arrangements with the Greater New York Film Rental Company. He wanted to know the reason, and they assured him that lie would see the reason in a very short time. The exhibitors in that vicinity were supplied with a particular kind of run for several months, which was