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)

Page scan 00055 from 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 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 #:
00055
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 12, 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.

II. N. Marvin, Direct Examination. 1281 pany licensed the Great Northern Film Company to import and distribute motion pictures for use on motion picture projecting machines embodying inventions covered by patents owned by the Biograph Company. Some of the Motion pictures imported by this concern prior to the time of this license were indecent and obscene, and the Biograph Company, not wishing to stand sponsor for motion pictures of that type, insisted upon an inspection of motion pictures imported by this concern, and the concern agreed not to circulate any copies of motion pictures that were condemned by the Biograph Company. The next step in the censorship proposition was taken by the licensed manufacturers shortly after the licenses were issued by the Motion Picture Patents Company. The manufacturers organized themselves into a Board of Censorship for the purpose of inspecting each other's products, with a view to preventing unintentional or inadvertent issues of any motion pictures that, in the judgment of the majority, were undesirable, from the standpoint of morals or public policy. Very soon thereafter, the Patents Company was approached by representatives of the People's Institute in this City, who suggested that they organize a censorship board, which they considered might be more effective, and certainly would inspire greater confidence on the part of the public than would a board composed by the manufacturers themselves, since the board of the People's Institute would be recognized as an independent board, entirely free from the control and influence of the manufacturers. It was the purpose of this Board, as indicated by the People's Institute, to criticize all motion pictures that should be issued in this country, whether issued by the licensees of the Motion Picture Patents Company, or by others. The Patents Company and the manufacturers recognized the arguments of the People's Institute as good, and thereupon delegated to them the functions that the manufacturers' Board would have exercised. The Motion Picture Patents Company co-operated with this Censorship Board appointed by the People's Institute, and affiliated philanthropic societies, to the extent of permitting them to make use of one of the rooms in the office of the Motion Picture Patents Company for the inspection of licensed motion pictures, and the several manufacturers contributed funds to the People's Institute to be used by