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 #:
000467
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. 445 ADVERTISING. 1 Members in advertising in the trade papers should always mention the fact in the advertisement that they are members of the Film Service Association. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. Mr. Rosenbluh, I find here a notice to suspend service, addressed to the Elorado Theatre at 1297 Wilkins Avenue by the Motion Picture Patents Company, on an affidavit by John J. Whitman. Was that theatre one of your customers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Please state the circumstances in connection with that cancellation? A. The exhibitor reported to me that he ran a particular picture known as "Esther and Mordecai" which was a Biblical subject, which he thought his neighborhood would require, or would like to see, and on Friday nights — Q. (Interrupting) : Was this a licensed film? A. It was a licensed film, but he procured it from some one who was not a licensed exchange; although we had the copy in our stock, he did not make any inquiry for it, but a friend of his who had a copy somehow in his possession, loaned it to him and he ran it off that evening in addition to his regular program, and for that violation his license was cancelled. He asked me why we refused to supply the service after the end of that week and I told him he would have to go to the office of the Motion Picture Patents Company and get his information there. That he did — and returned, and made a statement to me, which I asked him to sign. That is the statement (indicating). Mr. Caldwell: The answer is objected to on the ground it is conversations with a third party, hearsay. By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. There are some papers relating to the Windsor Amusement Company, in the matter of supplying them witli Biograph films. What is that incident? Do you recall? A.