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 000439 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 #:
000439
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.

A. J. Clapham, Redirect — Recross Examination 1057 Q. But the regular film, and by that I mean the kind that 1 you generally received, the celluloid film, that went to pieces rapidly, did it? A. Xo; with the celluloid films, at times you would get reels that would be badly worn on you, but I remember that the loss in nine months' time would average about twenty-five per cent. Q. Here you say seven months. A. I don't remember now whether the leasing time is seven or nine. Q. You stand by the letter, don't you? A. I stand by whatever the license agreement calls for. Nine or seven. Q. At that time you made an estimate? A. It was a rough estimate. Q. At that time you made an estimate based upon the license agreement term? A. Yes. Q. And you figured that twenty-five per cent, was a fair allowance to the rental exchange for wear and tear and depreciation and the parts that had to be thrown away? A. Yes, sir. Redirect examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. These bills which were introduced by defendants during cross examination were bills forwarded by you to them? 3 A. No, sir. Q. Please look at this letter which is produced by the defendants, a letter of yours, dated February 11th, 1910, Defendants' Exhibit 27, with a stamp upon it, February 16th, 1910, and written in pencil certain words which I cannot read. Are you able to state whether or not you ever received any reply to that letter (handing paper to witness)? A. (witness examining paper) : I don't recollect receiving any response to that letter. Recross examination by Mr. Kingsley: 4 Q. After writing the letter dated February 11th, and marked Defendants' Exhibit 27, you went East on that day, or within two or three days after? A. Within two or three days after. Redirect examination by Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Your trip to the East was made before your office had received the notice of cancellation dated February 8th? A. Yes, sir.