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 3
Leaf #:
000599
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:
July 11, 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.

Nathan Machat, Cross Examination. 1825 change. They wanted to get me out of there. At that time I was not at my theatre, when my manager received a call to help out an exhibitor with a certain reel at another house. This, exhibitor was a friend of mine. He gave him that reel. This friend of mine told me that he was put up by Mr. Rosenbluh to ask for that reel, and when I came up the next morning, I received a telephone in my house that my operator cannot get any service. I said, "Why?" He said, "You have given your reel to an independent exhibitor, and, therefore, your license is cancelled." I said, "When does the cancellation go into effect?" He said, "Right now." I said, "Can't you give me my show and give me a chance to come to New York, and to arrange for another service?" — as it was close to 3 o'clock, and I had to open my theatre. He said, "No, I cannot give it to you." Mr. Kingsley: Who said this? The Witness : Mr. Rosenbluh, over .the 'phone. I had to go to New York, close up my theatre for the afternoon show, and arrange for an independent service at that time. I had no time to choose. The next day I made up my mind to go up to the Patents Company and find out what was the trouble. One of the men there told me that the complaint came in where I have used one of my reels in some other house, and when I had explained him the matter, he said, "There was absolutely no necessity to cut off your service without a hearing. This is a thing that we would not do." I have arranged for my service the very same day, and I got it off the Kleine branch. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. You say that the Greater New York Film Rental Company wanted to get rid of you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why did you try to give the impression on your direct examination that you left the Greater New York Film Rental Company voluntarily because their service was bad and they gave you these films with six subjects on one reel? Mr. Kingsley: I object to that question as not