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 #:
000555
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.

James J. Lodge, Direct Examination. 1173 pany, and of the Motion Picture Patents Company, who were 1 present at the time. Q. Had you been advised prior to this meeting of December 18, 1908, of the plan of these various manufacturers taking out licenses of a uniform character from one company? A. I received a copy of the prospective amalgamation of the two forces, the Biograph Company and the Edison forces, and an outline of the agreement, I think, to the best of my knowledge, some four weeks or six weeks prior to the meeting, for us to study out and make suggestions if we felt inclined to, as to any matter, or any other suggestions that we wished to make about the matter. * Q. Whom did you receive this from? A. Mr. Frank Dyer. Q. State whether or not anything was said by any of the manufacturers in regard to the two dollars a week royalties to be collected, and the purpose of collecting same, and for what purpose the money so collected was to be used, if anything on that subject was said? A. Well, under the contract that we all signed that evening there were twenty-two per cent, of it stipulated — I think it was that, but I am not positive of it — to be distributed amongst us manufacturers. 3 Mr. Caldwell : I object to the witness stating the contents of the contract ; it is in evidence. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Go ahead, Mr. Lodge, and state everything you recollect on that subject, A. And the balance was to form, in the words of some of the members present, a gigantic fund — Mr. Kingsley (interrupting) : I object to the witness' statement, unless he can name the person or manufacturer who made that statement, 4 The Witness (continuing) : — for legal purposes, for litigation, so as to avoid the necessity of the individual manufacturers being called upon to contribute to that end. By Mr. Grosvenor: Q. Do you recall who of those present spoke on that subject of royalties? A. Well, there were only two or three present that I was on actual speaking terms with at the time,