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 #:
000448
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.

2898 John Collier, Direct Examination. dred and seventeen, and for the Motion Picture Patents Company two hundred and eighty-four. These contributions are voluntary, and the Board continues to censor whether there are any contributions or not, and its Censoring Committees never know, unless they make special inquiry, whether a given manufacturer is contributing. Q. Do you receive the contributions you have described as coming from the Motion Picture Patents Company, from that company direct? A. The contributions from the Motion Picture Patents Company reach the Board of Censorship through Mr. J. J. Kennedy, and our understanding is he secures these contributions from the members of the Patents Company group, although we do not know how the burden is distributed. The independent companies contribute through the Mutual Film Company and the Universal Film Company. Q. Have the licensed producers, or the Motion Picture Patents Company at any time attempted to influence the judgment or interfere with the decisions of the Board of Censorship in any way? A. The Motion Picture Patents Company has never attempted to interfere or even make suggestions. Occasionally an individual manufacturer rebels against the Board's standard as applied to him. This happens every few months in the Patents Company group, and in the other groups, but it is regarded as that manufacturer's fight. Except for these protests, we can say that neither the Patents Company group nor any of the independent groups have ever attempted to interfere, and in fact they have not given us as many suggestions as we have desired, as all of the trade groups seem to have the view that they had better not interfere with the Board, or even give the appearance of interfering with it. Q. Have the licensed producers, or the Motion Picture Patents Company at any time attempted to use the Board of Censorship as a means of harassing or interfering with the business of the independent producers? A. No, sir. That question is itself answered by the fact that the independent producers have all along voluntarily submitted their films, and are now submitting more films than the Patents Company. The Patents Company group have frequently urged the Board to make every effort to censor all films without exception because the Board's work cannot be effective to prohibit any manufacturer, unless all manufacturers, or substan