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 #:
000557
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, Cross Examination. 1175 pany commenced business, and about May, you said? A. Yes. It was just prior to that that a couple of films were offered for sale, and refused to be purchased by the Motion Picture Patents Company, and that being the case, we had to resort to other manufacturers to get some evidence to defend ourselves. Q. You have stated that the George Melies Company was a manufacturer of motion pictures in your direct examination. Is that correct? A. In this record? Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir; he was a manufacturer — we were there as a manufacturer. Q. I asked you when the George Melies Company commenced to manufacture film? A. The George Melies Company under the Patents license? Q. Under any license? A. We conformed to the Motion Picture Patents Company agreement by having some films sent us by George Melies, the prince of them in this country, and the Motion Picture Patents Company refused to buy them. Q. You never manufactured any films under the George Melies Manufacturing Company? A. No, sir; as a manufacturer under the license, we did not do any actual manufacturing, but we complied with the conditions of the license. Q. In point of fact, did you ever have a license from the Patents Company? A. Signed by me, and signed, I believe, by the officers, but not delivered, promised to be delivered by Mr. Dyer, who sent me on my way to Chicago with the promise, but never physically delivered, but I believe is in evidence in our little unpleasantness that we just got through with. Q. The Government is mistaken in its petition where it alleges the George Melies Company was an important manufacturer of film in the year 1908? A. That depends on the construction of that sentence and how you look at it. Q. You have just stated that you never manufactured any film under this company. A. In the concrete, we did not, but as a matter of fact — do you wish me to say we did not manufacture here? Q. I wish you to state what the facts are. A. We did not do so. Q. You did not do so? A. No, sir; not physically manufacture. Q. And the films you say you attempted to lease in Chicago were really films that were manufactured by Mr. George