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 #:
000560
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.

1178 James J. Lodge, Cross Examination. case? A. In the result I was, but not as to the additional remarks of the Honorable Judge. Q. Didn't you know that the United States Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously found that there had never been any contract for a license between your company and the Motion Picture Patents Company? A. I don't think they were quite as pointed in their remarks as that, were they, Mr. Caldwell? Q. They were. You knew that the Court found in that case as follows : "The equitable relief sought by complainant was properly refused by the Chancellor, on the ground of the false and fraudulent representations made by Lodge on behalf of the complainant to the Edison Company." You knew that, didn't you? A. I know it now; I believe you. Q. You know also that the Court found that those promises were made by you with no intention of keeping them, don't you? A. I know also that the defendants made a ruling in making the record of the case that they wanted a rescission of the contract, which the Honorable Court did refuse you, and I still have the license and the contract. Q. You know also that the Court found as follows: "This evidence convicts Lodge of making promises on behalf of the complainant with the then present intention of violating them?" A. Which was the sworn testimony of several of the parties, where they claimed an oral promise of mine which I never gave, and which was perjured testimony on the part of the defendants. Q. You knew that that was the unanimous finding of the three judges that passed upon the questions at issue in that case? A. Well, three judges? I will take your word for it. I did not know how many judges there were. I know wTe got the worst of the case, the same as a good many more people who ever fought against the Patents Company. Q. Mr. Lodge, in what other litigations have you testified against the Patents Company or the other defendants in this case? A. With all due respect to you, Mr. Caldwell, and other gentlemen present, unless counsel here advises me to continue this, I would rather decline to go any further or deeper into the case. Mr. Grosvenor: What is the question? Mr. Caldwell: I think the question is clearly