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 2
Leaf #:
000554
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:
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.

1172 James J. Lodge:, Direct Examination. Q. Was Mr. Kleine there? A. Now, that is a point I couldn't positively swear to right now, but my impression is, he was. Q. Who was present representing the Biograph Company? A. Mr. Marvin was there, and Mr. Kennedy was there. Q. Who was present representing the Edison Company? A. Mr. Scull was there and Mr. Dyer was there. Q. Who was representing the Essanay Manufacturing Company? A. Mr. Spoor was there. Q. Who represented the Kalem Company? A. Mr. Marion — Frank Marion. Q. Who represented the Lubin Company? A. Mr. Lubin himself. Q. Who represented the Selig Polyscope Company? A. Mr. Selig himself. Q. Who represented the Vitagraph Company? A. Mr. Smith, to the best of my belief. Q. Albert Smith? A. Yes, sir. Q. State to the best of your recollection what was done at that meeting? A. Each one of us was handed a printed form of the contract or license, expected to be gone over and signed at that meeting. After looking them over Mr. Dyer started to read each paragraph of the license or contract in sequence, and asked the different members present to follow him in reading them, and that it was open to any suggestions or any objections, that anyone of those present should make to what he read. After a time he assigned that task of reading to Mr. Scull, who continued it in the same way until the finish. There were no objections that I remember now by any member present, and finally Mr. Dyer asked if everyone was willing to sign, and some one suggested that we should adjourn until the next day, when he, Mr. Dyer, stated that he was very anxious that all the contracts should be signed then and there, and the affair closed up that night before adjourning or dispersing. We left there at eight o'clock, and then before leaving, of course, we all in turn were asked to come up and sign the contracts in duplicate, which we all did, one after the other, at his request. Q. You may state whether or not each of those socalled license agreements was signed in the presence of all the other manufacturers? A. Each contract was signed in the presence of all the other manufacturers, as well as also in the presence of the officers of the Edison Manufacturing Com