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 #:
000490
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.

2940 John Collier, Direct Examination. Henry Melville, Esq., attorney for George Kleine, Essanay Film Manufacturing Company, Selig Polyscope, George K. Spoor and W. N. Selig. James J. Allen, Esq., appearing for Vitagraph Company of America, and Albert E. Smith. Thereupon, JOHN COLLIER, recalled for further direct examination on behalf of the defendants, deposed: "Direct examination continued by Mr. Kingsley: Q. I asked you yesterday, Mr. Collier, respecting several months of 1913 which were missing from the statement that you gave us. The statement you gave us was in regard to the number of licensed and unlicensed pictures that had been censored by the National Board of Censorship. Have you obtained those missing figures? A. I now have the figures for each month of 1913 arranged according to the several companies who submitted them, and also the number of meetings involved in the censoring. Q. And was this list prepared according to your direction and under your supervision? A. Today. Yes, sir. According to my directions, under my supervision. Q. Is it a correct list? A. It is a correct list, to the best of my knowledge. It is a direct transcript of our card records. Mr. Kingsley: I offer it in evidence. Mr. Grosvenoe: I make the same objection regarding that list, as made respecting the testimony of this witness, and the exhibits introduced by him, as being immaterial and irrelevant. The paper offered is received in evidence and marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 14(>," and the same is as follows: