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 00087 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 #:
00087
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. 705 Q. And that was laid aside? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when the time came to ship back to the licensees you shipped back that old film which had been laid aside? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now during the time that you were accumulating 3,000 reels under the conditional sale of the Edison licensees, what was there to prevent you making a library at that time, if you wished? A. The fact is they would not have been on hand if I had it compiled. Q. Didn't you, as a matter of fact, have a collection of special reels at that time? A. We had a collection of all kinds. Q. Didn't you have a collection of special reels on hand at that time? A. What do you mean by "special ?" Q. I mean reels of special merit, I don't mean special in the sense that the manufacturer puts out in addition to the regular service. A. We had from time to time some specials. Q. You had more or less an accumulation of reels — A. (interrupting) : We made a list, a catalogue, and sent it out to these people that we were doing business with. Q. Was there anything in your arrangement with the Patents Company's licensees which prevented you from carrying 3,000 reels of film all the time in your business? A. You say was there anything? Q. Was there anything in your arrangement with the Patents Company's licensees which prevented you from carrying 3,000 reels of film in your business? A. No, sir. Q. You have always carried that, have you not, since you entered into the arrangement with the Patents Company's licensees? A. I believe so. Q. And you have more than 3,000 reels of film on hand to-day? A. Yes, I don't know the exact amount, but I judge about the same. Q. You don't say you have not. Now, what was the age of the film which you were permitted to return when you began to return film of the Edison Company's licensees? A. No particular age. Q. Did not the Edison licensees permit you to keep film for a year before you began to return it? A. We didn't return any. Q. But the agreement was that you could return it after a year, was it not, under the Edison license agreement? A. Thev didn't ask for it.