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 3
Leaf #:
00056
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.

1282 H. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. ■*■ them in any way that they saw fit. It was provided, among other conditions of the Censorship Board, that no member — Mr. Grosvenor: I object to this long dissertation as having no bearing upon any of the issues in this case. A. That no member of the Board who received any salary should have any voice in the criticism of motion pictures, the active Board being composed entirely of disinterested people who came there and criticized the pictures solely through their interest in the public good. Q. If the Board objects to a picture, is it withdrawn or changed? A. It is. Q. And the verdict of this Board is accepted, is it? A. It is. Q. At all times? A. Yes. Q. Is the Board still in operation? A. Yes. Q. Is it still passing upon pictures at the Motion Picture Patents Company's room? A. Yes. Q. How often does it meet? A. I believe they now meet 3 four days in a week. Q. Did you say that many of the foreign pictures were indecent at the time of the formation of this Board of Censorship? A. Yes, at the time of the organization of the Censorship Board, many of the pictures imported from foreign countries were indecent and obscene. Q. Are imported pictures also exhibited before the Board of Censors? A. Yes. The Board of Censorship now pass upon substantially all of the motion pictures that are manufactured in this country or imported. There may be an occasional picture that is imported and issued without 4 their supervision. Q. Do you recall that in the month of January, 1909, there was a meeting or convention of the members of the Film Service Association at the Hotel Imperial in New York? A. I remember that there was such a meeting about that time. Q. Do you recall that a committee came to the office of the Patents Company relative to the exchange license agreements which had been submitted to that meeting? A. I do. Q. Did you hear any discussion or participate in