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 #:
000347
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.

. Motion Picture Patents Co. and Gaumont Co. of X. Y. 325 or indirectly, to the Licensor or any of the additional licensees of the Licensor, the number of such feel of "Licensed Film" so ordered by or shipped to the Licensee; the Licensor further agreeing to so arrange or provide for the reports and royalty payments to be made to it by such manufacturer or manufacturers that the latter shall make such reports and royally payments in gross, as to all of the licensees to whom shipments of such "Licensed Film" are made, and without specifying the number of running feet of "Licensed Film7' so shipped to any of them, either by a statement in writing of the number of suck feet or the amount of royalties paid or to be paid by such manufacturer or manufacturers for or on account thereof. The Licensor and Licensee further mutually covenant and agree that no royalty (except as hereinbefore or hereinafter provided for), other than or in addition to that provided for in this paragraph shall be charged to or collected from the Licensee by the Licensor up to June 20, 1910, or during any renewal of this agreement up to August 31, 1911, the date of expiration of said reissued Letters Patent Nos. 12,037 and 12,192, and no royalty whatever (except as hereinafter provided for) shall be charged to or collected from the Licensee by the Licensor after either the first, second and third claims of said reissued Letters Patent No. 12,037, and either of the claims of said reissued Letters Patent No. 12,192, in any suit as hereinafter provided for. for infringement thereof, are held invalid by a Court that last hears and decides such suit, or after August 31, 1911, during any renewal of this agreement ; and that the Licensor shall charge royalties or rents for the use of all exhibiting or projecting machines capable of exhibiting or projecting motion picfures on film of a width greater than approximately one (1) inch, containing the inventions or any of them, described and claimed in the aforesaid Letters Patent Nos. 578,185, 580.749, 586,953, 588,916, 673,329, 673,992, 707,931, 722,382, 744,251, 770,937, 771,280, 785,205. and 785,237, licensed by the Licensor and that all such royalties or rents shall be collected by the Licensor, directly or indirectly from the exhibitors, including the Licensee, using such machines, and shall be fixed by the Licensor ami charged and collected from such exhibitors by the Licensor at such a rale as to average as nearly as possible a royalty or rental of Two Dollars ($2.00) per week for each such licensed machine in use. The Licensor further covenants and agrees that in exacting its weekly royalty for the use of any exhibiting or projecting