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 00086 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 #:
00086
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.

704 Louis Rosenbluh, Cross Examination. Q. Now, did you in January, 1909, return 3,000 reels to anybody anywhere? A. No, sir. Q. Did you in fact return that number or any number? A. No, sir. Q. Did you in March return that number or any number? A. No, sir. Q. Did you in April return that number or any number? A. No, sir. Q. Did you in May return that number or any number? A. No, sir. Q. Did you in June, July and August return that number or any number? A. I believe, if I am not mistaken, August was the first month, that was seven months after February. Q. So that, beginning on the first day of January, 1909, you had 3,000 reels of film, and you were taking service of the Patents Company's licensees up to August at least without returning any film? A. Yes. Q. So that you were accumulating film all the time up to August, and beginning with 3,000 reels of film, then you had considerably more than 3,000 about the first of August, 1909, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Now, when you began to return the film, what film did you return? A. No particular film. Q. No particular film? A. No particular film at all. Q. Didn't you take your old film that you had for eighteen or twenty months and return that? A. Well, it depended, both the new and the old. Q. Did you select it? A. Yes, to an extent. Q. Well, was there anything in that arrangement to prevent you from selecting the film which was the most worn and most deteriorated, and to return that to the licensees? A. No, sir. Q. That is what you did, was it not? A. At the beginning, yes. Q. You had in your establishment some way of testing film, to see whether it was worn, whether it was in fit condition for use or not, did you? A. Yes. Q. You knew the condition of your film from time to time, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, some film, of course, was rejected at times, was it not, by the people who examined it, your film clerks or splicing clerks, or whatever you call them? A. Yes, sir.