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 #:
000566
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.

1184 James J. Lodge, Cross Examination. an employe of our Company left that Company in the Summer of 1910, induced, as I have always believed, by the Motion Picture Patents Company and others, and organized the Melies Manufacturing Company. My Company, the George Melies Manufacturing Company, was one of the original "licensed manufacturers'' under license granted by the Motion Picture Patents Company in or about December, 1908. Such a license was signed by the Patents Company and by myself in behalf of my company, and nothing remained but to attach the seal of the Patents Company. The license was left with Frank L. Dyer, President of the Patents Company, for the purpose of having the seal of his company attached and on his promise to have the seal attached and forwarded to me in Chicago. The license never was forwarded to me, and I saw such license, for the first time since its execution, about 12 months ago, in the course of taking testimony in a suit brought by my company against the Motion Picture Patents Company to compel the Motion Picture Patents Company to deliver the license and specifically perform its undertakings therein. That suit is pending in the United States Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey. The licenses granted by the Patents Company to the so-called licensed manufacturers were identical in terms. One of the provisions of each of those license agreements was that the licensed manufacturer covenanted not to supply film to any film rental agency which was not licensed by the Motion Picture Patents Company. It was agreed among all the licensed manufacturers and the Patents Company, at the time when the license agreements were made, that the licensed manufacturers were under obligation to and would furnish the film manufactured by them, respectively, to all film rental agencies in the United States that were licensed or should be licensed by the Motion Picture Patents Company. This was a frequent subject of discussion at meetings of the licensed manufacturers with officers of the Motion Picture Patents Company. One or more officers of the Patents Company, usually Mr. Frank L. Dyer, the President, or Mr. Marvin, the Vice-President, or Mr. Kennedy, the Treasurer, were almost always present at meetings of the manufacturers. The agreement and obligation of the licensed manufac