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)

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 #:
00092
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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 21, 2023
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.

710 Louis Rosenbluh, Cross Examination. added to most of those machines before an increase in price, and before some of the changes were made? A. More fireproof regulation brought about an increase of price. Q. Now, these prices of projecting machines, Mr. Rosenbluh, which you have submitted here on your direct examination, and which are marked Petitioner's Exhibit No. 95 at page 384 of the printed record, do not have any explanation as to whether they are list, jobbers', or dealers' prices. Which do you say they are? A. The 1907 and 1908, I think are dealers' prices. Those in 1909 and 1910 are list prices. Q. What would the discount be on machines listed for 1909 and 1910? A. It all depends upon how large a user of the machines you were. There were various discounts. Q. What is the lowest discount? A. Twenty-five per cent. Q. Now, I will take the first line there where it says "Edison Co., 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910." A. I believe they were all list prices. You can let them all go far list prices. Because we bought them for less than that in 1907. Q. Coming down to 1909, taking off 25 per cent., what would the price be where you have got it $175? A. $140. Q. So it would not be any more than it was in 1908? A. $150 was the list price there also. Q. When did the General Film Company begin doing business in New York City? A. About July. Q. About July of what year? A. 1910. Q. At page 306 of your direct testimony you testified that there were two licenses cancelled about the time the General Film Company began business? A. Yes, sir. Q. Miles Brothers and The Imperial Film Exchange? A. Yes. Q. Is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, I call your attention to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25 at page 76, and I ask you to rea,d it, and tell me what cancellations it announces? Mr. Grosvbnor: This is an improper sort of a cross examination, to ask the witness to read a a exhibit, and then state what the exhibit contains. Why not state what the exhibit contains?