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:

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.

2204 Albert J. Gilligham, Direct Examination. the license of the Motion Picture Patents Company, that film shall be returned after approximately seven months. Did you regard this requirement as to the return of the film one in the interest of the business as a whole? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why so? A. For the reason that it would take away the rainy and mutilated film ; that would be film that would be scratched, and various scenes would have to be removed, owing to the fact that it had been damaged by exhibitors who had been using them. I considered that of great benefit to the business and to the public in general, as it took a very undesirable lot of film off the market. Q. In stating a few moments ago that you were taking twelve reels, you meant twelve reels a week, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the average price of each reel was about how much, in dollars? A. Approximately about a hundred dollars. Q. So that would make approximately $4,800 worth of film you were taking per month? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you signed the Patents Company license agreement in January, 1908, about how many reels did you have on hand at that time? A. Nine hundred reels, or more. Q. You were not required to return those reels or any of them as a condition in getting a license from the Patents Company, were you? A. No, sir. Q. Now, do you recall when the return of film first commenced under the Patents Company license? A. The Patents Company license was issued in January, and I recall one condition of it was that the film was to be returned seven months from the time it was purchased, but owing to the fact this would have brought it into about the month of August, that period was extended until September. Q. In the meantime you had accumulated quite a large stock of new film? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when you came to make your returns of film, what film did you select to return? A. We were permitted to return any film, that is, film of any make of equal amount of footage to what we had purchased later, and on complaints of the exchanges, owing to the fact that a certain quantity of film that was lost through making