Start Over

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 (1912-1913)

Page scan 00042 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:
1912-1913
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 7
Leaf #:
00042
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.

24 Edison Manufacturing Co. and Kalem Company. any respect more favorable to the licensees named therein than those set forth in this agreement; provided, however, that if any of such additional six licenses should be terminated, during the continuance of this agreement, then and in each such case the Licensor may grant a license to some other motion picture manufacturer but not on terms, conditions or stipulations which are more favorable as to such new licensee than those set forth in this agreement, it being the intent and purpose of the Licensor and Licensee that the Licensor shall have the privilege of having six outstanding licensees under said reissued Letters Patent numbered 12,037 and 12,192, in addition to that granted to the Licensee. It is further mutually covenanted and agreed by and between the Licensor and Licensee that in case the Licensor should be notified by the Licensee or it should otherwise come to its knowledge that any such additional licensee has knowlingly or through gross neglect or carelessness broken, violated or failed to perform any of the terms, conditions or stipulations of the license granted by the Licensor resulting in substantial injury to the Licensor, or the Licensee or the other licensees, the Licensor will promptly notify such licensee in writing of such breach, violation or non-performance, and if such licensee should, for a period not exceeding forty (40) days, after such notice, persist in or fail to correct, repair or remedy the same, the Licensor shall at once terminate the license to such licensee; and that in case any such licensee should be guilty of a second grossly neglectful, careless or knowing breach, violation or non-performance of such terms, conditions or stipulations, resulting in substantial injury to the Licensor, or the Licensee or the other licensees, then, and in such case, the Licensor shall terminate the license to such licensee by giving the latter thirty (30) days' notice in writing of its intention so to do. (21) It is 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 February 1, 1908, and shall continue for the term of two years from said date, 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 December 1, in each year, beginning with the year 1909, of its election to so renew this agreement and license, and upon the giving of each such notice this agree