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 00085 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 2
Leaf #:
00085
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 Rosenbluh, Cross Examination. 703 Q. That is, you thought it would suit the purpose at that time? A. I don't remember what the question was. Q. How many films have you on hand at the present time? A. I should judge about the same amount, about 3,000. Q. Now, did you say on your direct examination in response to a question asked by Mr. Grosvenor that you were obliged at the beginning of this Patents Company arrangement to return all of the film that you had theretofore collected? A. I don't remember that I said that. Q. Didn't you say at page 382 in the course of your direct testimony, when questioned by Mr. Grosvenor: "Q. You were then obliged at the beginning of this Patents Company arrangement, to return all the film which you had theretofore collected? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you get any allowance or any consideration for the return of that film? A. No, sir. Q. It was made a condition of obtaining licensed film thereafter? A. Yes, sir. Q. How much was the value of the film which you were obliged to return about that time? A. The purchase value was about three hundred thousand dollars.'' Were you asked those questions and did you make those answers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, Mr. Rosenbluh, I want to ask you how it was that you were compelled to return 3,000 reels of film as a prerequisite to obtain this service from the Patents Company? A. I don't quite understand that. Q. I want to know from you whether or not you were obliged to return 3,000 reels of film as a prerequisite to obtaining service from the Patent Company's licensees? A. We were to return a similar number of feet that were delivered to us at a certain time. Q. Now, you had on hand 3,000 reels? A. Yes, sir. Q. You had not returned any reels since the time you had begun to take service from the Edison licensees? A. No, sir. Q. You had not returned any film? A. No, sir. Q. So that at the time you entered into this arrangement with the Patents Company's licensees you had all the reels you had ever purchased, except those that might have been worn out or destroyed? A. Yes, sir.