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 000440 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 #:
000440
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.

418 Agreement, Patents & Gaumont Cos. 18. It is further mutually covenanted and agreed by and between the Licensor and Licensee that unless sooner terminated as hereinbefore or hereinafter provided, this agreement and the license granted thereby shall take effect on the day and year first above written, and shall continue until June 20, 1910, but that the Licensee may renew this agreement and license thereafter from year to year upon the same terms, conditions and stipulations as herein provided, by giving notice to the Licensor on or before April 20th of each year, beginning with the year 1910, of the Licensee's election to so renew this agreement and license, and upon the giving of each such notice this agreement and the license thereby granted shall be considered and treated by the Licensor and Licensee as renewed for a period of one year, beginning June 20th of the year following such notice, except that the last renewal period shall be for the period from June 20th, 1914, to August 26th, 1919, the date of expiration of the Letters Patent No. 707,934. It is further mutually covenanted and agreed by and between the Licensor and Licensee that if, during said original term or during any such renewal period, either party should, knowingly or through gross neglect or carelessness, be guilty of a breach, violation or non-performance of its covenants, conditions and stipulations, resulting in substantial injury to the other party, and should, for the period of forty (40) days after notice thereof from the other party, persist therein or fail to correct, repair or remedy the same, then in such case the party aggrieved may terminate this agreement by giving notice in writing to the guilty party of its intention so to do. It is, however, mutually covenanted and agreed by and between the Licensor and Licensee that if the guilty party should correct, repair or remedy such breach, violation or non-performance of its covenants, conditions and stipulations within the said period of forty (40) days after such notice, and should thereafter knowingly or through gross neglect or carelessness be guilty of a second breach, violation or nonperformance of its covenants, conditions and stipulations, resulting in substantial injury to the other party, then and in such case, the party aggrieved may terminate this agreement by giving thirty (30) days' notice in writing to the