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 #:
000451
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.

Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 429 or the daily productions, or what is known as the different releases coming out from time to time? A. Yes, sir. Of course, I might add that an exchange has the privilege of ordering any particluar picture to be reproduced after a few months after it was originally put on the market, but there is not any use for such film, because it cannot be used successfully and profitably for the exchange. To use it once or twice, nobody will pay sufficient for it, Q. And one exchange cannot go to another exchange and ask for the loan for such a film for a day or two? A. No, sir. Q. Or obtain it at a nominal price? A. No, sir. Q. Are these projecting machines today sold to the exhibitors regardless whether they are so-called licensed exhibitors or not? A. They have always been sold that way, today as any other time. There has never been any distinction in the sale of the machine as to whether or not it is going to be used at any particluar theatre or place. Q. The theatre which does not obtain the so-called licensed film gets the machine but pays no weekly tax, is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then the tax or weekly fee of $2.00, or royalty, is not based, as a matter of fact, upon the kind of machine in the possession of the exhibitor, but is based upon the source of supply of film used by the exhibitor? A. The royalty is paid only while licensed film is supplied to a theatre. Q. Yesterday you referred to a notice sent out by Mr. Dyer, relating to the return of licensed film in the year 1908, during the period of the Edison licensees. That was objected to on the ground that you stated the contents of a notice without the production of the same. Is this paper which I show you, being a printed Bulletin entitled "Bulletin No. 27" dated October 5th, 1908, signed "Frank L. Dyer, General Counsel" the paper to which you refer (handing paper to witness)? A. (Witness examing paper) : Yes, sir. Mr. Grosvenor: This bulletin is introduced in evidence, and counsel refers to the testimony of the