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 4
Leaf #:
000101
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 25, 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.

J. A. Bbrst, Direct Examination. 1951 left between now and the expiration of your license. I am willing to help you get the money, get you some money for your plant. You have had all your profits for the past couple of years. You say your plant has made all that money. Suppose we had put you out of business two years ago? You would not have had that profit. Figure that profit with what we are giving you now, and see if we are not giving you a good, libera] price?" A. No, I did not make that statement. Q. Or anything like that? A. I discussed the matter on a broad line, but not in a narrow way like that. Q. You did not say that in substance to him, or anything like the substance? A. Nothing like that. Q. Did you say to Fox on that occasion, either in terms or in substance : "Let me have a talk with Kennedy. After I have had a talk, we will probably send for you and everything will be all right?" A. I told just the contrary, that I would not interfere between himself and Mr. Kennedy. Q. Did you have a conversation with one Louis Rosenbluh shortly before the conversation with Mr. Fox to which I have called your attention? A. Yes, sir. Q. About how long before? A. The day prior. Q. On that occasion when discussing the cancellation of the Greater New York Film Rental Company's license, did you say in terms or in substance that, "while there was not any particular reason, of course the reason has been given, but you did not ascribe that to have been the actual reason ; the main reason was that the directors have received reports from the managers of the General Film Company?" A. In my conversation with Mr. Rosenbluh, the General Film Company was never pronounced. Q. Did yon tell Rosenbluh that it was impossible to increase the price of rentals satisfactorily, so long as the Greater New York Film Rental Company was in the field? A. This matter was not discussed between Mr. Rosenbluh and myself. Q. Did you say to him that when the General Film Company attempted to increase the price for an exhibitor, invariably the exhibitor would say that the Greater New York Film Rental Company had not increased its price, and he would go to that company rather than stand a raise, or