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 #:
000449
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.

John Collier, Direct Examination. 2890 tially all, are submitting their films. The independent producers are equally anxious to have all of the Patents Company's films censored. Q. Are you able to tell us the number of licensed and unlicensed motion picture subjects examined by the Board of Censors in 1912 and 1913? A. From January 1st, 1911, to October 1st, 1911, there were one thousand five hundred and seventy -nine Patents Company subjects, and nine hundred and nine independent subjects; from November 1st, 1911, to October 1st, 1912, there were two thousand four hundred and seventy-seven Patents Company, and eighteen hundred and fifty-one independent subjects. Then, taking months in 1913 and 1911: in February, 1913, there were two hundred and twenty-nine Patents Company, and two hundred and thirty-eight independents; in March, 1913, two hundred and twenty-nine Patents Company, and two hundred and one independents; in April, 1913, two hundred and seventy-one Patents Company, and two hundred and forty-seven independents. The last month, January, 1911, Patents Company, two hundred and fifty-six subjects, and independent companies two hundred and seventy-six subjects. In January, 1911, two hundred and eighty-four Patents Company reels were censored, and five hundred and seventeen independent reels. The greater number of the independent reels is accounted for by the fact that the independent group includes the most of the feature and State Rights companies, which release subjects of two, three, four, and five reels. Q. How many independent subjects did you say were censored in January, 1911? A. Independent, 276. Q. And how many reels did that require? A. Five hundred and seventeen reels. That includes, we believe, approximately all of the independent output, except the Kinemacolor, and an occasional feature film, which is put out without our knowledge, or in some other part of the country. Q. At the beginning of the censorship did you have practically all of the independent producers as you have now? A. No, at the beginning, the control over the independents was loose. The independents were not organized, and after we obtained an independent manufacturer he was liable to withdraw for weeks or months. The Board gradually brought all of the independents in through various kinds of pressure, and in particular through bringing to bear on the independent exchanges all over the country the pressure of the