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 #:
000556
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.

3 1174 James J. Lodge, Cross Examination. so I heard it generally spoken of, but Mr. Berst was the one that I was depending upon for a lot of information I received at that meeting. Q. Now, were you referring to the two dollars a week royalty from the exhibitors, or to the socalled film royalties? A. The two dollars a week from the projecting machine royalties; and Mr. Spoor also mentioned the fact as to the fund created for purposes of litigation. Q. Was anything said at this meeting on December 18th, by any of the manufacturers present, on the subject of the power of the new company, or the position in the trade that it would have, and, if anything on that subject was said, please state what, and by whom, to the best of your recollection? A. Only in a general way, I can say that it was made a big point of by everybody, the advantage to be gained by the amalgamation of the two concerns, and that it would completely act as giving the concern so created control of the situation, film situation. Mr. Caldwell: I move to strike that answer out as vague and uncertain. The Witness: Mr. Spoor, and Mr. Selig, and Mr. Berst, and Mr. Marion, I can sa}7, spoke as to that, as to this fact. Cross examination by Mr. Caldwell: Q. Mr. Lodge, when did the George Melies Company commence business? A. When did it commence business? Q. Yes. A. Well, in a way we commenced business, I should judge, about May 1909. In our former testimony, Mr. Caldwell, I cannot recall the exact date without refreshing my memory with the evidence given in our extended suit. Q. Now, isn't it a fact, Mr. Lodge, that about May, 1909, the George Melies Company executed a lease of all its property to the Phoenix Company? A. After being refused a license by the Motion Picture Patents Company — the delivery of the license — we saw a long suit in front of us, and in order to pay lawyers we subleased the plant to the Phoenix Company. Q. Do you call that commencing business? A. No, sir. Q. With the Phoenix Company — A. Oh, no. Q. I asked you the question when the George Melies Com