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)

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 #:
000346
Language:
English
Collection:
Early Cinema and Government & Law
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 21, 2023
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.

324 Motion Picture Patents Co. and Gaumont€o. of N. Y. foot on the total number of running feet for that year; if such shipments, on its orders, 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-quarters (3%) mills per running foot on the total number of running feet for that year; and if such shipments, on its orders, of such "Licensed Film," for any such year, exceed ten million running feet, a royalty of three and one-quarter (3%) mills per running foot on the total number of running feet for that year. And for "Licensed Film" narrower or wider than approximately one and three-eighths (1%) inch, or thirty-five (35) millimeters, the above mentioned royalties shall be reduced or increased in proportion to the reduction or increase in width of such narrower or wider "Licensed Film" below or above the width of such "Licensed Film" of approximately one and threeeighths (1%) inch or thirty-five (35) millimeters. The Licensor and Licensee further mutually covenant and agree that the manufacturer of such "Licensed Film" shall in the first instance, that is to say, when such film is billed and shipped by it, charge the Licensee with its price per running foot plus the maximum royalty aforesaid, and on the expiration of each year, counting from June 20th, 1909, shall adjust the royalty account of the Licensee as to "Licensed Film" so billed, and shipped to and paid for by the Licensee, according to the royalty schedule aforesaid, return to the Licensee any amount the Licensee shall have overpaid, according 1o said schedule, arid paying the balance to the Licensor; and that the royalties which may hereafter be paid to the manufacturer of such "Licensed Film" after the date hereof and up to June 20, 1909, under Ibis agreement, shall be adjusted and the excess returned, in the same manner, the royalty rate to be charged for such period being the rate that would have been charged if the shipments of "Licensed Film" to the Licensee had been continued for a year at the same rate at which shipments were made for such period. The Licensor further agrees that the dealings between the Licensee and the authorized manufacturer or manufacturers from whom the Licensee purchases such "Licensed Film" shall, insofar as the number of running feet ordered by or shipped to the Licensee or anything that would indicate or disclose the number of such feet is concerned, be a matter of confidence between the Licensee and manufacturer or manufacturers, who shall not be at liberty to disclose, and moreover shall be bound in writing nol to disclose, directly