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 000441 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 #:
000441
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. 419 guilty party of its intention so to do. Such termination of the agreement, however, shall not prejudice either party hereto in the recovery of damages because of any such breach, violation or non-conformance by the other party hereto. 19. All notices provided for in this agreement shall be in writing and shall be given by delivering the same to the Licensor or Licensee, as the case may be, or to an officer of the Licensor or Licensee, as the case may be, or by depositing such notice, postage prepaid, in any Postoffice of the United States, in a sealed envelope, directed to the Licensor or the Licensee, as the case may be, at its last known Post-office address, to be forwarded by registered mail. 20. It is mutuary covenanted and agreed by and between the Licensor and Licensee that after notice of the termination of this agreement and the license granted thereby by either party, as provided for in Paragraphs 19 and 21 of this agreement, and after the same have been terminated, no matter what the cause or manner of termination may be, neither this license agreement, nor the fact that the Licensee has entered into or acted under it, shall be used in any manner directly or indirectly, by or for the Licensor, its successors, assigns or legal representatives, or by or for others with its or their consent or permission, against the Licensee, or the Licensee's successors or legal representatives, in any litigation, controversy or proceeding involving the Licensee or them or any other persons, firms or corporations, or in any other way, it being understood and agreed that upon such termination the positions and rights of the Licensor and Licensee shall be the same as if this agreement had not been made; Provided, however, that the rights of neither party shall be prejudiced by such termination in the recovery of damages for any breach or other violation of this agreement by the other occurring prior to such termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed bv their officers dulv