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)

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 #:
000618
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:
May 23, 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.

592 Gov t Ex. 131, Agt. Edison & Eastman Kodak Cos. United States, or who may, after the date of this agreement, commence the manufacture of negative and positive motion pictures in the United States, and also to any person, firm or corporation who is now or may hereafter be one of the "Patents Company licensees" and who shall have ceased to be such a licensee; but such film so sold to "foreign manufacturers'' and ex-licensees shall not be considered as licensed by the Patents Company for use in the manufacture of motion pictures, nor shall any royalty be charged or collected therefor by the Eastman Company. 14. The Eastman Company further covenants and agrees that it will mark conspicuously on each box or package containing such "N. I. Licensed Film," supplied by it to the "Patents Company licensees," the following words and figures: "N. I. Licensed Film Licensed for Use Only by Licensees of the Motion Picture Patents Company." 15. It is mutually covenanted and agreed by and between the Patents Company and the Eastman Company that the maximum prices to be charged by the Eastman Company to the "Patents Company licensees" during the continuance of this agreement shall be three and one-half (3%,) cents net per running foot for non-perforated "N. I. Licensed Film" approximately one inch and three-eighths of an inch (1% in.) in width, and three and three quarters (3%) cents net per running foot for perforated "N. I. Licensed Film" approximately one inch and three-eighths of an inch (1% in.) in width (which prices shall be reduced or increased in proportion to the reduction or increase in width of narrower or wider "N. I. Licensed Film" than that approximately one inch and three-eighths of an inch [1% in.] in width) plus the royalties referred to in Paragraph f> of this agreement, which are to be charged to the "Patents Company licensees" (except to the Edison Manufacturing Company) ; it being further covenanted and agreed, however, that the Eastman