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 #:
00084
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.

702 Louis Rosenbluh, Cross Examination. Q. Now, in that agreement was there not also a stipulation to the effect that you could not rent or loan films to other rental exchanges? A. Yes, I believe there was something to that effect. Q. Yes; and that agreement was still in effect on the 7th of January, 1909, was it not, at the time you went into the Patents Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And was there not also a clause in that agreement to the effect that exhibitors were not allowed to transfer reels from one to the other? A. In which agreement was that? Q. In the Edison license agreement, to which your company was a party? A. I believe there was such a clause. Q. Now, at the time that The Greater New York Film Rental Company made a contract with the Patents Company, how many reels of film did you have on hand? A. I should judge, about 3,000 reels. Q. And from whom had you secured those reels? A. From various manufacturers. Q. How long had you been dealing with the Edison licensees at that time? A. About nine months. Q. So of these 3,000 reels of film that you had on hand you had secured a part from the Edison licensees during the nine months preceding? A. Yes. Q. Now, what was the value of these films? A. The purchase value? Q. No ; I am asking you what was the value of them ; you have answered in your direct examination that it was $300,000. A. The purchase value. Q. Was that the value of the film? A. The purchase value. Q. That was the purchase value? A. Yes. Q. And some of these films were nearly two years old, were they not? A. They may have been even older than that. Q. What was the real value of them? A. I should judge about $100,000. Q. So that when you stated on your direct examination that the value of these reels was $300,000, you knew as a matter of fact that the value of them, even according to your own judgment, was not more than $100,000? A. Whatever answer I made was an answer that I thought would answer the question.