Start Over

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 (1914)

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:
1914
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 5
Leaf #:
000556
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:
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.

2998 George K. Sroon, Direct Examination. 1 By Mr. Caldwell : Q. Do you know a man named James J. Lodge, of Chicago, who was called as a witness by the petitioner in this case? A. I met him once. Q. The witness Lodge has testified that at meetings of the Edison licensees, and subsequently at meetings of the Patents Company licensees which he attended, a discussion was had among the manufacturers as to establishing a rental agency of their own. Did you ever see Lodge at any meeting 2 of the Edison licensees? A. Not of the Edison licensees. Q. Did you ever see him at any meeting of any of the licensees? A. He was at one meeting of the Edison licensees and the Biograph Company, at the first meeting, when the Patents Company contract was discussed. That is the only meeting I ever saw him at. Q. Was there ever at any time any discussion at any of these meetings prior to 1910 as to the organization by the manufacturers of a rental agency? A. No, sir. Q. Do you know a man by the name of Streyckmans? A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. He was at one time the editor of or connected with a paper published in Chicago called the "Show World," was he not? A. Yes, sir, I think he was. Q. Do you recall the so-called warfare between the Biograph and the Edison interests in 1908? A. Yes, sir. Q. While that was in progress did you at any time tell Streyckmans that he was very foolish to exhibit in his paper the advertisements of George Kleine? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Or, that it would probably lose Streyckmans the friendship and the advertising patronage of the Edison Company and its licensees? A. I never told Mr. Streyckmans anything of that kind. Q. And did you ever tell him that George Kleine would undoubtedly be crushed out of business in a very short time? A. No, sir. Q. Have you read the testimony of the witness Lodge at pages 1173 and 1174, Vol. II, of the record in this case? A. I believe I did some time ago. Q. He states that you told him or mentioned the fact to him that through the exhibitors' royalties a fund was created for the purpose of litigation. Did you ever tell him that in words or in substance?