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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
000525
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 21, 2023
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.

Peroival, L. Waters, Direct Examination. 2971 Q. Did you say to Eosenblnh on that occasion that you were telling him of this conversation with Fox in all frieDdliness and that now was the time to sell? A. No. Q. Did you say to Rosenbluh on that occasion, either in terms or in substance, that it would not be possible for the Greater New York Film Rental Company to continue independently since the Directors and men connected with the General Film Company had their plans laid for the exclusive control of the business of the United States, and they would not consider having the Greater New York Film Rental Company as a competitor? A. No. Q. Did you tell him that the men connected with the General Film Company had their plans laid for the exclusive control of the business of the United States? A. No. Q. Did you say to Rosenbluh on that occasion, either in words or in substance, that you would like to be in the position of a competitor against the General Film Company, and although you had accepted f 100,000 for your business you would gladly repay that f 100,000, and give f 100,000 in addition for the advantage or privilege of having a license that could not be cancelled? A. No. Q. Had you as a matter of fact received $100,000 for your business? A. No. Q. Did you state to Rosenbluh on that occasion, either in terms or in substance, that you would not have sold your rental exchange to the General Film Company if it had not been for the fact that it was pointed out to you that it was to your advantage to sell with a clause in the license agreement revocable on fourteen days' notice, and after the matter had been put to you in that light you thought it advisable to accept the offer given you and you in turn advised every man who asked your opinion, and you were willing to do the same for Rosenbluh to accept what money might be offered? A. No. Q. Had you as a matter of fact advised any man to accept what money might be offered him? A. No. Q. Had any statement been made to you at the time you sold your stock and films to the General Film Company to the effect that with the fourteen-day clause in your license it was to your advantage to sell? A. No. Q. Did you volunteer the advice or give the advice in any way attributed to you by Mr. Rosenbluh on the occasion of