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 #:
000558
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.

1176 James J. Lodge, Cross Examination. Melies, in France, and sent to his brother, Gaston Melies, in New York; that is the fact? A. The negatives were made in Paris, and the positives were made in the City of Chicago, by the George Melies Company, and offered for sale, and refused. Q. Then the extent of the business consisted in offering these two films for sale, or lease? A. Yes; that is as far as we got before the Patents Company clipped us. Q. Now, you brought suit against the Motion Picture Patents Company, and the Edison Manufacturing Company, did you not? A. Yes. Q. And when did you bring that suit? A. I think that was some time in the middle of 1909, or was it before that? But you are asking the question ; pardon me. Q. To the best of your recollection? A. I could not swear to the date right now without refreshing my memory — some time in 1909. Q. What was the nature of that suit? Do you remember in what court it was brought? Mr. Grosvenor : I object to this cross examination, except in so far as it may be for the purpose of showing that the witness is hostile to the defendant. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. Do you remember in what court it was? A. The Federal Court, first, I believe, in Trenton, New Jersey. Q. What was the relief that you asked in that action? A. We asked the Honorable Court to compel the defendants, the Edison Manufacturing Company and the Motion Picture Patents Company, to recognize us the same as any other of its licensees. Q. In other words, it is in the nature of a bill for specific performance of an alleged agreement to give you a Patents Company license, is it not? A. No, sir. Q. Didn't you ask in that bill that the license agreement which you claimed to have been executed, be delivered to you? A. Physically delivered, yes, but we claimed that it was executed and the minds met, as you lawyers say — Q. (interrupting) : In other words, you asked for a delivery of that license? A. And compel the Patents Company to recognize us and to treat us the same as other licensees.