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 000613 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 #:
000613
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.

Gov't Ex. 134, Aot. Edison & Eastman Kodak Cos. 587 foot on the total number of running feet for that year; if such shipments, on the orders of such licensee, 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 the orders of such licensee, 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-quarter (3%) mills per running foot on the total number of running feet for that year; and if such shipments, on the orders of such licensee, of such "Licensed Film," for any such year, exceed ten million running feet, a royalty of three and one-quarter (3Vi) mills per running foot for the total number of running feet for that year. And for "Licensed Film" narrower or wider than approximately one and three-eighths of an inch (1% in.) or thirtyfive (35) millimetres, the above mentioned royalties shall be reduced or increased in proportion to their reduction or increase for such narrower or wider film below or above the royalty on said "Licensed Film" of a width approximately one and three-eighths of an inch (1% in.) or thirtyfive (35) millimetres; and 7. WHEREAS, the Eastman Company represents that it has for many years past manufactured by secret processes and embodying secret compositions and patented inventions at said City of Rochester, State of New York, sensitized translucent or transparent film (having a nitrocellulose base) suitable for use in the commercial manufacture, printing and production of negative and positive motion pictures, and has sold the same in the "territory aforesaid" and in foreign countries, the parties to the license agreements referred to in Paragraph 4 (with the exception of George Kleine) having been some of its customers therefor, and that it has special facilities for the manufacture of such film; and has entered into an agreement in writing dated on or about the 1st day of January, 1909, with the Patents Company, respecting, among other things, the supplying of such "Licensed Film" (having a nitrocellulose base) to persons, firms and corporations who have been licensed by the Patents Company under said reissued letters patent No. 12,192, and the collecting there