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 #:
000561
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. 1179 admissible for the purpose of showing bias on the part of the witness. Mr. Grosvenor: I have no objection to the question if you will read it. The Examiner reads the question as follows: "Q. Mr. Lodge, in what other litigations have you testified against the Patents Company or the other defendants in this case?" Mr. Grosvenor: I think you had belter answer the question to the best of your recollection. The Witness : Yes, sir. The case in litigation between the Fox Company — I don't know the name of the case, and the Patents Company; and also Austin Fynes against the Patents Company for services which they refused to pay him for, and I was one of the witnesses. By Mr. Caldwell : Q. Did you volunteer your testimony in the suit of the Greater New York Film Rental Company against the Patents Company and others? A. I was asked if I would testify. They approached me and asked me if I would testify or would not testify to certain facts, and I said I would be perfectly willing to testify as to what I knew of the exact circumstances and truth of the matter. But I did not make the initial movement. Q. Did you testify in the case of the Chicago Film Exchange? A. Yes; another case. Not in Chicago. Q. In Washington? A. In Washington. Q. Did you volunteer to testify in that case or were you subpoenaed? A. I was not subpoenaed, so if that means voluntarily, why, I did not wait. Evidently not in a frame or mood to wait for a subpoena when I was asked to come up and testify as to facts. Q. Are you under subpoena in this case? A. Absolutely, yes, sir. Q. You do not feel very kindly to the Patents Company, do you? A. Not any more kindly than a man would be that caught a man that stole a pocketbook out of his pocket. That is about the way I feel. Q. Now, you made an affidavit in the Greater New York Film Rental case in which you refer several times to meetings