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 #:
000496
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.

474 Louis Rosenbluh, Direct Examination. 1 MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY New York, N. Y. Sep. 14, 1911 Form 253 5M 2—11 (Back) GREATER N. Y. FILM RENTAL CO., 116 E. 14th St., New York City X32. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. What different rules have been in force by the Patents Company relating to the return of film since the company commenced business in 1909? A. At first it was directed, or, at least, we were directed to return ninety per cent, of the amount purchased or leased of any make or age: it was then changed because it was found that ninety per cent, was more of the film than could really be returned, and then it was limited to eighty per cent. Q. Was some of it impaired and destroyed in the course of use? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do the exchanges make over the film or repair the film, do they have workmen for that purpose? A. Yes, they have splicing clerks. Q. Go on, please. A. And at a later date, sometime in 1911, it was changed in that each manufacturer required his own make to be returned, and then there was an additional change at the end of 1912, which required the name of the subject that was returned and it should be only the make of each manufacturer to whom it was returned. Q. By this means the manufacturer was advised at all times of what reels you had on hand, and what you returned? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know a man by the name of Bra den up at the offices of the Patents Company; have you had dealings with such a man? A. He is the man we had most of our conversations with over the telephone and the man to whom we directed exhibitors to take up any of their mat