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 #:
000567
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. 1185 turers to furnish film to all licensed film rental agencies was just as distinct and well understood as their written obligation in their license agreements not to furnish their film to any rental agency that was not licensed by the Patents Company. Immediately after, as I understood, my company had been licensed by the Patents Company, it received from the Patents Company a list of licensed rental agencies, with instructions to supply film to no other agencies, and from time to time thereafter received revised lists showing changes in the licensed rental agencies, some of the licensed agencies having been eliminated, and our instructions were not to supply any film to such agency whose license had been cancelled. For a considerable time before the formation of the General Film Company, the project of organizing such a company for the purpose of controlling the business of supplying films to licensed exhibitors was discussed at meetings of the licensed manufacturers and the Patents Company, and it was agreed that such a corporation should be formed for that purpose, and that the licensed film rental agencies throughout the United States should be absorbed by the new corporation to be composed of or controlled by the licensed manufacturers. The General Film Company was accordingly organized under the laws of the State of Maine in the spring of 1910, and my information is that it has absorbed or eliminated every film rental agency in the United States, except the Greater New York Film Rental Company. 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, either in its own name or in the name of some officer. The understanding was that the licensed manufacturers were to share equally in the stock of the General Film Company. The officers and directors of the General Film Company, since its organization, have been made up of officers or directors or representatives of the licensed manufacturers, and the General