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 2
Leaf #:
00083
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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:
June 13, 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, Cross Examination. 701 Q. What arrangement did you have with the Edison licensees regarding the return of film which you secured from them? A. None, other than was in the sales agreement. Q. What was that arrangement in the sales agreement? A. There was some clause in there which is in the printed paper; I don't know how it reads. Q. Was not there a clause in the sales agreement with the Edison licensees by which The Greater New York Film Kental Company was compelled to restore films, or return films, at the expiration of six or seven months? A. There was such a printed statement in the sales agreement. Q. Was there not a clause in the agreement which provided that after the expiration of six months these films which you say you bought were to be returned to the licensees from whom you bought them? A. Such a sentence was printed in that sales agreement, which was modified later on. Q. So that all of the film which you received in pursuance of your contract with the Edison licensees was received conditionally? A. It was understood — Q. (interrupting) : Xow answer me. All the film you received from the Edison licensees, and by "you" I mean your company, was received conditionally, was it not, in pursuance of the agreement? A. It was according to the sales agreement, which was — Q. That is an answer. So that the sales to you were conditional, is that not true? A. There was — Q. (interrupting) : Just a moment. I am not asking you that — the sales to you were conditional, were they not? A. I don't know what you mean by "conditional." There were several conditions. Q. But the sales to you were subject to the return of the film at the expiration of six months, were they not, by that agreement? A. It was contrarily understood, though. Q. Now, Mr. Rosenbluh, I didn't ask you whether it was contrarily understood or not, but I asked if the sales under that agreement were not conditional, were not subject to return after six months; just answer that yes or no? A. The original paper so stated, and it was then modified. Q. Were you one of the Edison licensees at the time of the formation of the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that sales agreement was still binding upon you, was it not? A. Yes, sir.