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 #:
000490
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.

468 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 1 you have decided to discontinue our service. We are surprised to find that you are going to an exchange where they do not have the various Specials which every up-to-date manager realizes must be shown in order to hold his patrons. Your action will, of course compel us to fully protect our other customers in the way of Specials and age of reels, and we assure you that we will do so. Yours very truly, GENERAL FILM CO. Per R. Etris 2 RE/RV Branch Manager. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. This letter of the General Film Company, written to Norton & Gentile, states: "We are surprised to find that you are going to an exchange where they do not have the various 'Specials' which every up-to-date manager realizes must be shown in order to hold his patrons." Are these the "Specials" in respect to which you testified yesterday? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did this exhibitor, Norton & Gentile, come to take your service? A. Yes, sir. Q. Here is a letter of the Kaiem Company dated June 24th, 1912, referring to the "Tragedy of the Desert," and stating that that was disposed of to the General Film Company. Was that another "special" which your company was unable to obtain? A. Yes, sir; we had several telephone conversations asking for the supply of those "specials," but we could not get them under any circumstances. Mr. Grosvenor: I offer that letter in evidence. The letter is marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 122, and is as follows: