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 000489 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 #:
000489
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 Rosexbluh, Direct Examination. 467 eral Film Company, and see whether she could not make her own arrangements. She tried that, and came back and said it was impossible to do that unless she made complete arrangements for complete service. I then told her to do that, and she went back again, and made arrangements for complete service, and immediately was booked for all these subjects that she could not get formerly — she got them without any trouble, and she did commence her service with the General Film Company at the end of that week, and stayed there for several months, until she used up the specials, and is now back again with the Greater New York Film Company, where she chooses to do her business in preference to the General Film Company. Mr. Caldwell: That question and answer I object to as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. Mr. Grosvenor: Here is a letterhead of the General Film Company, dated November 13th, 1912, addressed to Messrs. Norton & Gentile, New Haven, and I offer it in evidence. Mr. Caldwell: The letter is objected to as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant. The paper is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 121, and is as follows : Petitioners Exhibit No. 121. GENERAL FILM CO. 107 E. 17th Street New York Films for Rent Licensed by Moving Picture Motion Machines Picture and Supplies. Patents Co. Nov. 13, 1912. Mess. Norten & Gentile, 791 Chapel St., New Haven, Conn. Gentlemen : Yours of the 11th inst. received and regret to note that