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 00090 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 #:
00090
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.

708 Louis Rosenbluh, Cross Examination. 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. 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.'' A. That is what I meant to say. Q. Were not those questions asked you, and didn't you make those answers? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, as a matter of fact, you did not return any film at all, did you, except such film as you had already received compensation for in the shape of new film? A. We have not received any compensation in the shape of new film. Q. As a matter of fact, you did not return any old film except such old film as represented new film that had already been shipped you? A. I didn't understand the question. Mr. Kingsley: Please read him the question. The question was read the witness as follows : "Q. As a matter of fact, you did not return any old film except such old film as represented new film that had already been shipped you?" The Witness: We paid for each reel that we got. Mr. Grosvenor: I think that question is confusing. By Mr. Kingsley: Q. You did ship back old film, did you not? A. We did ship back film, yes. Q. And that was to make good new film which had been shipped to you about six or seven months before? A. It was returned — Q. (interrupting) : Just answer my question; that was to make good new film which had been shipped to you about six or seven months or before that, was it not? A. We were carrying out our arrangement to return film. Q. Will you answer my question? A. I can't answer it as to any particular reel returned. Q. Did you ship back old film for any other purpose