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 #:
000105
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. 723 Q. Have you ever been limited to any given number of exhibitors in any way by the Patents Company? A. I don't know just how you mean. Q. I mean, you could serve any exhibitor that you could obtain as a customer, could you not? A. Providing he was licensed. Q. Assuming he was licensed? A. And there was nothing against his character. Q. And I think you have already said you have competed with the General Film Company for customers? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you think the exchange between you and them has been about even? A. Well, just recently I have lost a little more, but I am in hopes of getting them back again after the rumors die away. Q. Now, will you turn at page 362, you will notice there this question : "And thereafter, were you required to confine your rentals of films to your customers, and to give no films to the customers of any of the other exchanges? A. Yes, sir." You did not mean to imply by that that you could not go out and get new exhibitors so long as they were licensed, and add to the list of your customers? A. No, sir. Cross examination by Mr. Caldwell : Q. Mr. Rosenbluh, you have stated that some time prior to December 25th, 1911, you consulted counsel and obtained an injunction from the Court stopping the cancellation of your license. That is correct, is it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that under that injunction, you were enabled to continue to supply your customers? A. Yes, sir. Q. In what Court was that suit brought? A. In the State Court. Q. Who were the defendants in that suit? A. The Motion Picture Patents Company and, I believe, the General Film Company. Q. Any one else? A. The licensed manufacturers. Q. Was your motion to continue that injunction granted? A. Well, I don't know just how those matters were taken care of. Q. Don't you know, Mr. Rosenbluh, that Mr. Justice Bijur, early in 1912, denied that motion? A. I really could