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 #:
000562
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.

1180 James J. Lodge, Cross Examination. of the licensed manufacturers, and what transpired at those meetings. I wish you would tell me any meeting of the licensed manufacturers that you ever attended, Mr. Lodge? A. I would rather — in fact, I will decline to answer that question. It does not bear on this case at all, and unless I refresh my memory by looking over the testimony, I could not answer that question. Q. I will permit you to do that. A. If the counsel present will allow me to continue this, I will do so. Q. There is your affidavit in that case, if you will look it over and refresh your memory. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to the last question except in so far as it refers to the meeting of December 18th, which was testified to by this witness on direct examination. As I recall the direct examination, I made no reference to any other meetings, therefore any cross examination as to what may have transpired at any other meetings is improper. Mr. Kingsley: This question goes directly to the credibility of the witness, and is therefore a material and proper question. Counsel is testing his credibility. By Mr. Caldwell: Q. Have you refreshed your recollection now, Mr. Lodge, by reading this affidavit? A. Yes. As much as a man of my age can do so at this time. Q. You have sworn here as follows : "At meetings of the licensed manufacturers and the Patents Company preceding the formation of the General Film Company, it was stated that every licensed manufacturer would have the privilege of becoming a subscriber for stock of the General Film Company, and my understanding is that every one of the licensed manufacturers except perhaps the Melies Manufacturing Company, did acquire stock in the General Film Company." Now, can you name any meeting of the licensed manufacturers, Mr. Lodge, at which you were present, at which that subject came up for discussion? A. I could not name any one. I only know that it was discussed. Q. How do you know it? Were you there? A. I was present myself and also the president of my company was there and reported it.