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 000420 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 #:
000420
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.

398 Agreement, Patents & Gaumont Cos. 1 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 127. LICENSE AGREEMENT (a) THIS AGREEMENT made this 2d day of March 1909, by and between the MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey and having an office at Jersey City in said State, party of the first part (hereinafter referred to as the "Licensor"), and the GAUMONT COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under 2 the laws of the State of New York, and having an office at New York City, New York, party of the second part (hereinafter referred to as the aLicensee,,), WITNESSETH THAT:— (b) WHEREAS, the Licensor represents that it is organized to own, deal in and grant licenses under Letters Patent pertaining to the motion picture art, and that it is the owner of all the right, title and interest in and to United States Letters Patent: 3 No. 578,185, dated March 2, 1897, for Vitascope, granted to Thomas Armat; No. 580,719, dated April 13, 1897, for Vitascope, granted to Thomas Armat; No. 586,953, dated July 20, 1897, for Phantoscope, granted to Charles F. Jenkins and Thomas Armat; No. 588,916, dated August 24, 1897, for Kinetoscopes, granted to Charles M. Campbell as the assignee of Willard G. Steward and Ellis F. Frost; No. 629,063, dated July 18, 1899, for Kinetoscopic Camera, granted to American Mutoscope Company, as the assignee of Herman Casler; No. 673,429, dated April 30, 1901, for Kinetoscope, granted to The American Vitagraph Company as the assignee of Albert E. Smith; No. 673,992, dated May 14, 1901, for Vitascope, granted to Thomas Armat; No. 707,934, dated August 26, 1902, for Projecting Kinetoscope, granted E. & H. T. Anthony & Co., as assignees of Woodville Latham; No. 722,382, dated March 10, 1903, for Animated Pic