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 #:
000569
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
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:
June 13, 2024
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. 1187 ents Company for the payment of legal expenses involved in bringing and defending numerous litigations over patents and arising out of the various steps and proceeding taken by the Patents Company to secure control of the situation. The officers of the Patents Company and particularly Mr. Dyer and Mr. Kennedy, repeatedly assured the licensed manufacturers that it was only a question of time when the Patents Company would control the whole situation, which would accrue to the benefit of all the manufacturers. The projecting machines upon which the above-mentioned royalty of |2 each per week is exacted from exhibitors, are, to a large extent, machines that had been bought outright by exhibitors or rental agencies during the past ten years or more, and the exaction of the royalty upon machines, which in many instances had for many years been owned outright by agencies or exhibitors, was simply an arbitrary exaction, illustrating the attitude which the Patents Company and the licensed manufacturers had taken toward the business. J. J. LODGE. Sworn to before me this 15th) day of December, 1911. } Wm A. Young, Notary Public, No. 4, New York County. Cross examination, by Mr. Kingslby: Q. Now, Mr. Lodge, as I understand it, you were present, according to the testimony, at a meeting on December 18th, 1908, of the licensed manufacturers? A. Yes, sir. Q. After that meeting of December 18th, 1908, did you personally ever attend a meeting of the licensed manufacturers? Mr. Grosvenor: What do you mean by a "meeting?" Do you mean a formal meeting of the Board? By Mr. Kingsley: Q. Did you ever attend a meeting where the licensed manufacturers gathered together?