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 #:
000449
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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.

Louis Rosexbluh, Direct Examination. 427 known as the two-day-old, a fourteen-day old and a twentyfive-day old. Three exhibitors dividing the releases among themselves. Just as soon as this exhibitor continued to do business with the Greater New York Film Rental Company, the General Film Company supplied in addition to that regular run, a first run to each and every one of those three, in addition to the regular service, without charging any additional money. So the exhibitors informed the man doing business with us. This man came down to me and asked why we could not do the same thing. I told him we had to pay for our goods, and we could not give the goods away without any charge. We then investigated the matter, and we found that although the exchange that was doing business with these various accounts, did not have the first runs of their own, they went to each and every one of the exchanges and collected any first runs that they had on their shelves or did not have any contracts for — Q. (Interrupting) : You mean that one branch of the General Film Company went to another branch of the General Film Company and got the films? A. Yes, sir. This, to my knowledge, is a violation, and for which violation exchanges previously had their licenses cancelled, but it does not seem as though the General Film Company has any rules to live up to, according to these methods. Mr. Willis : The same objection. Q. Let me direct your attention to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19, record page 70 : "Recently complaints have been made to the Patents Company that films leased by some exchanges are loaned by those exchanges to their branch offices or to other exchanges. Such lending or exchanging of films is a violation of the Exchange License Agreement, and exchanges found guilty of this practice, after this notice, will be required to show cause to the Patents Company why their licenses should not be cancelled." That is contained in Exchange Bulletin No. 8. Is that the rule to which you refer, that the licensed exchanges were not allowed to exchange their films or to exchange the film between the branches of the same exchange? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is that rule observed by the General Film Company today? A. No, sir. And there is one other rule that was particularly brought out, that no two exchanges were to