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 00091 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 #:
00091
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. 709 except to make good shipments of new film which had been made to you previously? A. We were returning reels — Q. I didn't ask you that. I must insist that you answer the question. A. Well, I am trying to. Q. You know you are not. A. I do not want to answer it the way you want me to answer it. Q. I want you to answer this question : You shipped back film, didn't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. That film was shipped back because you wished to return it in place of new film which had been shipped you six or seven months previously, is not that correct? A. Return it in place of such film that was supposed to be returned. Q. That is, you chose the film that you shipped back? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, was there anything in your agreement with the Patents Company's licensees which prevented you from setting the 3,000 reels of film which you had aside and keeping them as long as you liked? A. Yes, sir. Q. As I understand it, your agreement with the Patents Company's licensees provided that after the expiration of six months you were to ship back an amount of film corresponding to the amount that you had received seven months previously? A. Yes, sir. Q. What was there to hinder you doing that if you wished? A. Not practical as a business proposition. Q. Then you didn't do it? A. No, sir. Q. And you substituted your old film for the new live film which had been shipped you? A. I didn't say which one I substituted, but I sent back those films that I could best get along without. Q. In the course of your direct examination you submitted a list of prices of projecting machines, which was marked Petitioner's Exhibit 95, and which purported to represent the prices in 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910, which you said were made up from your memory, which you claimed was good. Have you verified those figures since? A. No, sir. Q. Isn't it true that new models of projecting machines have been made since the first of January, 1909, and that there have been several changes in such models? A. Yes, sir. Q. Isn't it true that additional fireproof devices were