United States v. Paramount Pictures
Decision Date | 25 July 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 87-273.,87-273. |
Citation | 85 F. Supp. 881 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, Inc. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge, HENRY W. GODDARD and ALFRED C. COXE, District Judges.
Herbert A. Bergson, Assistant Attorney General, Robert L. Wright and J. Francis Hayden, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, George H. Davis, Jr., Washington, D. C., and Harold Lasser, New York City, Special Attorneys, for United States of America.
Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl, J. Robert Rubin, New York City, for defendant Loew's, Inc.; John W. Davis, J. Robert Rubin, S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., and Benjamin Melniker, New York City, of counsel.
Joseph M. Proskauer and Robert W. Perkins, New York City, for the Warner defendants; Joseph M. Proskauer, Robert W. Perkins, J. Alvin Van Bergh, Howard Levinson, and Harold Berkowitz, New York City, of counsel.
James F. Byrnes, Washington, D. C., Dwight, Harris, Koegel & Caskey, New York City, for Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation and National Theatres Corporation, defendants; James F. Byrnes, Otto E. Koegel, John F. Caskey, and Frederick W. R. Pride, New York City, of counsel.
Schwartz & Frohlich, New York City, for defendant Columbia; Louis D. Frohlich and Everett A. Frohlich, New York City, of counsel.
Charles D. Prutzman, New York City, for Universal defendants; Cyril S. Landau, New York City, of counsel.
O'Brien, Driscoll & Raftery, New York City, for defendant United Artists Corporation; Edward C. Raftery and George A. Raftery, New York City, of counsel.
This case comes before us after a decision by the Supreme Court affirming in part and reversing in part our decree and findings of December 31, 1946, 70 F.Supp. 53. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 68 S.Ct. 915, 92 L.Ed. 1260. Under our findings of fact, we held that there had been violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2, which were summarized in the conclusions of law as follows:
As a remedy for the violations which we have summarized above, we held that a system of competitive bidding for film licenses should be introduced, saying in Finding 85 that:
We also said in Finding 111 that the granting of discriminatory license privileges would be impossible under such a system of competitive bidding as we have mentioned. In addition to providing a system of competitive bidding, we enjoined the unlawful practices above referred to, other than discrimination in granting licenses, which was sufficiently obviated by the provisions for competitive bidding.
In connection with the foregoing, we denied the application of the plaintiff to divest the major defendants of their theatres on the ground that such a remedy was too harsh and that the system of competitive bidding when coupled with the injunctive relief against the practices we found to be unlawful was adequate relief, at least until the efficiency of that system had been tried and found wanting. We held that the root of the lack of competition lay not in the ownership of many or most of the best theatres, but in the illegal practices of the defendants, which we believed would be obviated by the remedies we proposed. We examined the theatre holdings of the major defendants, found that they aggregated only about 17% of all theatres in the United States, and held that these defendants by such theatre holdings alone did not collectively or individually have a monopoly of exhibition. While we did not find in express terms that there was no monopoly in first-run exhibition, we did review the statistics as to the first-run ownership in the 92 largest cities and stated in our opinion of June 11, 1946, that the defendants were not to be viewed collectively in determining the question of monopoly. See 66 F. Supp. 323, 354. We also found no substantial proof that any of the corporate defendants was organized or had been maintained for the purpose of achieving a national monopoly. Finding No. 152. Likewise, even as to localities where one defendant owned all first-run theatres, we found no sufficient proof of purpose to create a monopoly or that the total ownership in such places had not rather arisen from the inertness of competitors, their lack of financial ability to build comparable theatres, or from the preference of the public for the best equipped theatres. Finding No. 153.
In its opinion remanding the case for further consideration in certain respects, the Supreme Court affirmed our findings as to price-fixing, runs, clearances, and discriminatory licenses and other practices which we found to be unlawful, with certain minor reservations as to the unlawfulness of joint interests and franchises. It eliminated, however, the provisions of our decree for competitive bidding "so that a more effective decree may be fashioned," adding by way of caution that: 334 U.S. at page 166, 68 S.Ct. at page 933. It directed our further...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc.
...than independently as to the power which they exercised ... over the market by their theater holdings ." ( United States v. Paramount Pictures (S.D.N.Y. 1949) 85 F.Supp. 881, 894, italics added.) In this context, the holding in Paramount Pictures served a unique purpose: "unravel[ing] the e......
-
Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc.
...than independently as to the power which they exercised ... over the market by their theater holdings ." ( United States v. Paramount Pictures (S.D.N.Y. 1949) 85 F.Supp. 881, 894, italics added.) In this context, the holding in Paramount Pictures served a unique purpose: "unravel[ing] the e......
-
Beacon Theaters, Inc v. Westover
...53, affirmed in part and reversed in part, 334 U.S. 131, 68 S.Ct. 915, 92 L.Ed. 1260, subsequent proceedings in the District Court, 85 F.Supp. 881. The decrees in that case set limits on what clearances could be given when theatres were in competition with each other and held that there sho......
-
State of Michigan v. Morton Salt Company
...323, 70 F.Supp. 53 (S.D. N.Y. 1946), aff'd in part, rev'd and remanded in part, 334 U.S. 131, 68 S.Ct. 915, 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948), 85 F.Supp. 881 (S.D.N.Y.1949), aff'd per curiam, 339 U.S. 974, 70 S.Ct. 1032, 94 L.Ed. 1380 (1950), a Government antitrust action against several companies in th......
-
Exclusive dealing
...in exclusive dealing, known in the industry as “tracking,” but without formal contracts. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 881 (S.D.N.Y. 1949), aff’d sub nom. Loew’s, Inc. v. United States, 339 U.S. 974 (1950); and Ralph Cassidy, Jr., Impact of the Paramount Decision on......