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 #:
000444
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.

2S(Jl John Collier, Direct Examination. Thereupon, JOHN COLLIER, the next witness produced by the defendants, of lawful age, being duly sworn by the Examiner, deposes as follows : Direct examination by Mr. Kingsley: Q. Where do you live, Mr. Collier? A. Sparkill, New York. Q. Where is your place of business? A. 70 Fifth Avenue. Q. Are you connected with any organization or institution at the address mentioned? A. With the National Board of Censorship of Motion Pictures, and the People's Institute. Q. What is the People's Institute, Mr. Collier? A. The People's Institute is an organization supported by voluntary contributions doing educational work, civic educational work among the immigrants of the East Side and the wage-earners generally. Q. What is the connection of the National Board of Censorship with the People's Institute? A. The People's Institute is one of the constituent bodies that make up the National Board, and was the organization that brought about the creation of the National Board. Q. When was the National Board of Censorship organized? A. In March, 1909. Q. Did you participate in the formation of the National Board of Censorship? A. Yes, I was then the Secretary of the People's Institute, and the Board was started by Prof. Charles Sprague Smith, the Director of the People's Institute, and myself. Q. What were the circumstances which led up to the formation of the National Board of Censorship? A. The moving picture shows were being assailed and pursued because of the quality of the films — Mr. Grosvenok: I enter objection to this examination, on the ground that it is irrelevant, and has no bearing on any of the issues in the case; I understand that this objection applies to all of the examination of this witness, without my repeating it. Mr. Kingsley: It may be so understood. The Witness: In December of 1908 the Mayor of New York closed all the moving picture shows in New York be