Start Over

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 000469 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 #:
000469
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 Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 447 has that reference to? Does that refresh your recollection? Read the letter please (handing paper to witness). A. This exhibitor discontinued doing business with us for a period and when he again made application, Ave found in our files that a cancellation card had been sent out. We notified him that we could not take up his service unless he made application to the Motion Picture Patents Company to have his license reinstated. He did go there, and came back and stated that the Patents Company exacted from him to pay six months' royalties in advance, which he refused to do, and stated that his company which was an association composed of membership of Bohemians, they would not consent to any such arrangement at all, and that if we wanted to get him to use licensed service again, we would have to make some other arrangement. I believe the matter was then taken up again across the 'phone, and we were advised that if the exhibitor instead of giving six months' royalty in advance, would give a written statement that he would remain a licensee for at least six months, that that would be sufficient at that time, to reinstate him — and such a letter was sent to them to confirm the telephone conversation, and I believe we did reinstate the service for that exhibitor on such an arrangement. Mr. Caldwell: The question and answer is objected to on the ground that it is obviously hearsay, and further, on the ground that it purports to state the contents of letters, and I move to strike it out, Mr. Grosvenor : The evidence is all introduced for the purpose of showing the general difficulties of conducting a business under the license agreements. Mr. Melville : I ask that the latter portion of the answer be stricken out on the ground that it is not testimony to a fact, but simply to a belief. Mr. Grosvenor: This letter which I will offer in evidence, states : "We will grant a new license to this place on condition that they furnish a written agreement to use only licensed film for a period of six months." By Mr. Grosvenor : Q. That is the agreement to which you refer? A. Yes, sir.