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.

Philip J. Scheck, Cross Examination. 2399 would have a customer, say, down in Virginia, and he will say, "I want twelve reels, in order to make but one shipment, and save the cost, to save the express charges, and I will hold these reels until Saturday, and I will return them," and we would ship him twelve reels, old reels, sixty or ninety day old pictures, and, instead of him holding these reels for his own use, he would be sub-renting them to his friends, in the neighborhood, and he would be making money on our pictures, down there, wherever they would go to. Q. And you say you think that any rental exchange which did not handle twenty-five hundred dollars worth of film a month, was not entitled to be considered an exchange? A. They could not supply the trade, because that is only seven reels a week, and the people were changing every day, two reels, at least, a day, and they could not supply their own customers without repeating on them constantly, and a man would not stand for it; he would find his trade would not stand for it. Q. There were, up until 1908, or up until that by-law was adopted, a number of companies or persons that were attempting to do a rental exchange business, who were buying less than twenty-five hundred dollars a month? A. Well, I don't know. I couldn't answer that, because I didn't enquire into the other fellow's business myself. I only know how we were running our business. They could not run it successfully, to save their lives. Q. You don't know whether or not there were others that were doing business, or trying to do business on less than $2,500 a month? A. No, sir, I don't. Q. While you were doing a rental business at Baltimore, you had competition, you say, with rental exchanges at Philadelphia, and also in Washington? A. Yes, sir. Q. That is territory that could be profitably reached from Baltimore by rental exchanges located there, and also could be profitably reached by rental exchanges located in Washington, and in Philadelphia? A. Yes, sir. It is only an hour's run from Washington to Baltimore, you know. Q. When you sold out in October, 1910, to the General Film Company, you knew that the latter company had acquired a number of exchanges? A. Yes, sir. Q. And it had, at that time, entered very largely upon the rental exchange business? A. Not in our section.