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 #:
00094
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:
June 13, 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.

712 Louis Rosenbluh, Cross Examination. censes of those exchanges have been cancelled for violating the terms of their license agreements relating to the use of licensed film and unlicensed projecting machines, and the maintaining of an unlicensed exchange. That is dated, is it not, April 23rd, 1910? A. Yes, sir. Q. Has there been competition between you and the General Film Company for customers? By customers 1 mean, of course, exhibitors? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever obtained any exhibitors who formerly did business with the General Film Company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And I suppose they have obtained some of your exhibitors? A. Yes, sir. Q. What has been the proportion of these exchanges? Have you obtained as many exhibitors of the General Film Company as the General Film Company have obtained from you, or approximately the same number? A. I don't know who got the worst of it. Q. You don't know? A. I don't know. Q. But you are not finding any fault with the situation regarding that? That is, you do not know whether it is an even trade or not? A. We have been very active and tried to get others when they took some of ours away. Q. You have been competing with them for business? A. Yes, sir. But we got it to a great extent from people who were not doing business with them, but were independents. Q. I asked you about the exchanges between you and them. A. I said I did not know. Q. Now, going back to this question of specials. You get specials now, don't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you have been getting them for some months, haven't you? A. Yes. Q. I think you said on your direct examination that the General Film Company obtained some specials which it handled exclusively? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you ever apply to any of the Patents Company licensees for an exclusive special? Of course, by "you'' I always mean your company? A. I don't remember that we did. Q. On page 406 of your direct testimony, I think you said Miss Erb, when she wanted some specials was informed