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 #:
00095
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.

Louis Rosenbluh, Cross Examination. 713 by you that you did not handle specials advertised as exclusively supplied by the General Film Company. That she made arrangements with the General Film Company and became one of their customers and got specials? A. Yes, sir. Q. After getting these specials, she came back to you, did she not? A. For several weeks she was doing business there. Q. Then she came back to you, didn't she? A. Yes. Q. Is she still doing business with you? A. The house is. She does not own the house. She sold the place. Q. And the house gets specials from you now? A. Yes, sir. Q. These specials that she could not get at the time she left and went to the General Film Company were films that they handled exclusively, were they not? A. In this country. Some of those, some specials, were imported from the other side, and they were in the independents' hands, but we could not use those. Q. Referring to the great majority of the motion pictures that you handled, is not the value of the film to you largely dependent upon its age? A. Will you repeat that question, please? The stenographer repeats the question. A. Some reels are and others are not. Q. I am speaking of the great majority of them? A. The majority of them are; yes. Q. Do you charge differently for the service of programs which you furnish to exhibitors? A. Yes; varied. Q. And does this price vary for programs containing the same number of reels and the same number of changes a week? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that is based upcn the age of the film, is it not, largely? A. Not always. Q. Largely? A. Very often it depends upon the distance that the customer is away from the exchange, and the conditions surrounding that particular exhibitor's business. Q. Now, leaving that as it is, let us suppose that you are dealing with exhibitors who are about the same distance from the exchange, and who are equally accessible. Does the price vary for programs containing the same number of reels and the same number of exchanges, to those people?