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 #:
000472
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.

150 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. that the letter was very good advice, but somehow or other it did not help me to a great extent, because eventually this exhibitor not being able to get licensed film directly, got it indirectly from one of the exhibitors that had the supply, and one of my films was replevined there, so that I lost it. Mr. Marvin evidently knew the account very well. Q. When the Film Service Association was in existence, did you furnish that Association with a list of your customers? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that was the first Association which attempted to keep a list of the customers of all the different exchanges? A. Yes, sir, it was intended as a credit association. Each exchange was to guard against bad debts, and so forth. Q. Was there any rule prohibiting you from giving film or renting film to exhibitors that were customers of the other exchanges in the Film Service Association? A. I do not believe there was any provision so long as he did business with a licensed exchange, we were permitted to supply him, but if he had notice that he did not do all his business with a licensed exchange, we were not to supply him with any film. Q. And by licensed exchanges, meant a member of the Film Service Association? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have produced the following letters, being notices from the Motion Picture Patents Company of the cancellations of theatres, which I offer in evidence. You identify all of these papers as taken from your files, and being letters received by you in course of mail (indicating) ? A. Yes, sir. It was the method of advising us of cancellations prior to the card system, which started about the time of the forma cion of the General Film Company. Mr. Grosvenor: I will simply read the names of the theatres and their dates into the record, if counsel agree, without putting in the letter in each case. Is that agreeable? Mr. Caldwell: Subject to objection. Mr. Grosvenor: Well, I will put in the letters. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer in evidence letter of December 13th, 1909, regarding Cluse Brothers, Arlington Theatre, Brooklyn, N. Y.