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 00089 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 #:
00089
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. TOT stood May, that the term "special" began to be applied to these special releases, page 3T3. Mr. Kingsley : But he testified that in 1911 special features were in existence, and were being released. Mr. Grosvenor: Yes, but released on the regular releases. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. You are supplying how many exhibitors with films? A. About 140 to 145. Q. Are you not supplying about 150 to 155? A. No. Q. When did you last count them up? A. Last week. Q. What time? A. About Tuesday. Q. Did you give testimony some day last week in a suit in the Federal Court before a Master? A. I don't remember being there last week — yes, I was there last week. Q. How many exhibitors did you have in January, 1909? A. About one hundred, I should judge. Q. So you have had practically an increase of fifty per cent, in number of exhibitors that your firm serves since the beginning of your arrangement with the Patents Company's licensees? A. Yes, sir. Q. You do not wish it to be understood that as a condition precedent to receiving the service of the Patents Company's licensees you were obliged to return |300,000 worth of film, do you? A. I don't quite understand that question, sir. Mr. Kingsley: I will ask Mr. Hacker to read it to you. The question was read to the witness as follows: "Q. You do not wish it to be understood that as a condition precedent to receiving the services of the Patents Company's licensees you were obliged to return $300,000 worth of film, do you?" The Witness : I don't believe I made any such statement. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Didn't you say at page 382 of the record in your direct testimony: "Q. You were then obliged at the beginning of this Patents Company arrangement, to return all