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 000429 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 #:
000429
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.

Agreement, Patents & Gaumont Cos. 407 said, and on the expiration of each year, counting from June 20th, 1909, shall adjust the royalty account of the Licensee as to "Licensed Film'' so billed, and shipped to and paid for by the Licensee, according to the royalty schedule aforesaid, return to the Licensee any amount the Licensee shall have overpaid, according to said schedule, and paying the balance to the Licensor; and that the royalties which may hereafter be paid to the manufacturer of such "Licensed Film" after the date hereof and up to June 20, 1909, under this agreement, shall be adjusted and the excess returned, in the same manner, the royalty rate to be charged for such period being the rate that would have been charged if the shipments of "Licensed Film" to the Licensee had been continued for a year at the same rate at which shipments were made for such period. The Licensor further agrees that the dealings between the Licensee and the authorized manufacturer or manufacturers from whom the Licensee purchases such "Licensed Film" shall, insofar as the number of running feet ordered by or shipped to the Licensee or anything that would indicate or disclose the number of such feet is concerned, be a matter of confidence between the Licensee and manufacturer or manufacturers, who shall not be at liberty to disclose, and moreover shall be bound in writing not to disclose, directly or indirectly, to the Licensor or any of the additional licensees of the Licensor, the number of such feet of "Licensed Film" so ordered by or shipped to the Licensee; the Licensor further agreeing to so arrange or provide for the reports and royalty payments to be made to it by such manufacturer or manufacturers that the latter shall make such reports and royalty payments in gross, as to all of the licensees to whom shipments of such "Licensed Film" are made, and without specifying the number of running feet of "Licensed Film" so shipped to any of them, either by a statement in writing of the number of such feet or the amount of royalties paid or to be paid by such manufacturer or manufacturers for or on account thereof. The Licensor and Licensee further mutually covenant and agree that no royalty (except as hereinbefore or hereinafter provided for), other than or in addition to that provided for in this paragraph shall be charged to or col