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 #:
000582
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.

1200 James J. Lodge, Recross Examination. be adjourned to the next day, but some one suggested that the licenses be signed that evening and submitted to the directors of the Patents Company for ratification (it appearing that it was requisite that all the licensees should signify their assent by signing the new licenses to be issued by the Patents Company). Mr. Dyer stated that he had no objection to the proposed licenses being signed, on the understanding that they would not be binding until the directors of the Patents Company had ratified them. The meeting was finally adjourned until the next day, at the office of the Patents Company, at Orange, New Jersey. All the Edison Company licensees attended the adjourned meeting, except complainant. The directors of the Patents Company resolved that the Patents Company would not grant the application of complainant for a license, but approved the applications of the other Edison Company licensees, and Patents Company licenses were issued to them about January 1st, 1909. The Secretary of the Patents Company took the licenses which had been signed on December 18th, to the office of the Patents Company, at Orange, and on December 19th, signed, as Secretary, all the proposed licenses, including that to complainant, and placed the company's seal on them. Dyer telephoned the Secretary not to sign and seal the proposed license to complainant, but he had already done so. The Patents Company did not deliver the proposed license to complainant. On the contrary, the complainant was eliminated from the list of licensed manufacturers, and the licensed exchanges were notified of this fact. It afterwards transpired, as shown by the evidence, and especially by the testimony of Mr. Lodge himself, that at the very time, September 18th, 1908, when it was agreed to transfer the Edison licenses to the new Melies Company, organized by said Lodge, in reliance upon Lodge's statement in regard to the transfer of stock that had been reported to Mr. Dyer, and of his promise that no more should be transferred, and what was already transferred, if possible, recalled, he, Lodge, had been and was then in a deal with Max Lewis for the sale to him of 350 shares out of 750 authorized by the Melies Company, and a few days after September 18th and the signing of the papers on that day, he, Lodge, consummated this deal and afterwards obtained from him, in December, $35,000 in payment thereof. It will be remembered that Lodge, in his proposal to