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 00054 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 1
Leaf #:
00054
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 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.

32 Circulars to Film Rental Exchanges. for use in the United States and its territories and will not be permitted to sub-lease them for use in Canada, Mexico and other foreign countries. (c) The same requirement for the return of motion pictures is made in the new agreement as was made in the old one, and it is intended that this clause shall be enforced and in this way prevent the exhibition of worn out and damaged pictures. (d) Hereafter when any motion pictures are destroyed or lost it will be necessary within fourteen (14) days after such destruction or loss, for the exchange to furnish satisfactory proof to the Manufacturer or Importer from which such picture was obtained, in order that the exchange will not have to account for that film when it should be otherwise returned to the Manufacturer or Importer. (e) Under the new agreement no distinction is made between an exchange and a branch. A license agreement will be necessary for each place of business operating as an exchange and no exchange is to establish a branch or any new place of business unless the regular license agreement is first signed for the new exchange and accepted by the Patents Company. By this means all controversy as to what constitutes a branch and who is responsible for it, will be avoided and failure to meet the requirements of the conditions of the license for one exchange will not necessarily jeopardize the license for any other exchange. Each exchange or branch will be required to purchase |2,500 worth of film per month for direct shipment to its office. This change is intended to eliminate insignificant offices which have been used heretofore simply as an outlet for worn out films. (/) If any one wishes to open a new office, it will be necessary to apply to the Motion Picture Patents Company for a license and that Company will determine whether or not the new office would be beneficial to the whole trade and will accordingly grant or refuse the license. (g) Payments on all invoices received during each week