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 000428 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 #:
000428
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.

406 Agreement, Patents & Gaumont Cos. charged for "Licensed Film'' to the Licensee and paid over to the Licensor) shall not, for "Licensed Film" of a width approximately one inch and three-eighths of an inch (1% inch or thirty-five (35) millimeters, purchased by the Licensee during the year preceding June 20, 1909, and during any year thereafter during the continuance of this agreement, as hereinafter provided, exceed the following rates, that is to say: — If the shipments of such "Licensed Film'' to the Licensee, on its orders, for any such year, be four million running feet or less, a royalty of one-half (%) cent per riming foot on the total number of feet for that year; if such shipments, on its orders, of such "Licensed Film,'1 for any such year, exceed four million running feet but do not exceed six million running feet, a royalty of four and one-half (4%) mills per running foot on the total number of running feet for that year; if such shipments, on its orders, of such "Licensed Film," for any such year, exceed six million running feet but do not exceed eight million running feet, a royalty of four (4) mills per running foot on the total number of running feet for that year; if such shipments, on its orders, of such "Licensed Film," for any such year, exceed eight million running feet but do not exceed ten million running feet, a royalty of three and three-quarters (3%) mills per running foot on the total number of running feet for that year; and if such shipments, on its orders, of such "Licensed Film," for any such year, exceed ten million running feet, a royalty of three and one-quarter (3%) mills per running foot on the total number of running feet for that year. And for "Licensed Film" narrower or wider than approximately one and three-eighths (1%) inch, or thirty-five (35) millimeters, the above mentioned royalties shall be reduced or increased in proportion to the reduction or increase in width of such narrower or wider "Licensed Film" below or above the width of such "Licensed Film" of approximately one and three-eighths (1%) inch or thirty-five (35) millimeters. The Licensor and Licensee further mutually covenant and agree that the manufacturer of such "Licensed Film" shall in the first instance, that is to say, when such film is billed and shipped by it, charge the Licensee with its price per running foot plus the maximum royalty afore