joint ownership of theaters by two nominally competitive studios; Formula deals, master agreements, and franchises: arrangements by which an exhibitor or distributor allocated profits among theaters that had shown a particular film, and awarded exclusive rights to independent theatres, sometimes without competitive bidding; Block booking, the studios' practice of requiring theaters to take an entire slate of its films, sometimes without even seeing them, sometimes before the films had even been produced ("blind bidding"), and Discrimination against sm

The Court ruled 7-1 in the government's favor, affirming much of the consent decree (Justice Robert H. Jackson took no part in the proceedings). William O. Douglas delivered the Court's opinion, with Felix Frankfurter dissenting in part, arguing the Court should have left all of the decree intact but its arbitration provisions.
Douglas[edit]
Douglas's opinion reiterated the facts and history of the case and reviewed the District Court's opinion, agreeing that its conclusion was "incontestable".[5] He considered five different trade practices addressed by the consent decree:
Clearances and runs, under which movies were scheduled so they would only be showing at particular theatres at any given time, to avoid competing with another theater's showing;
Pooling agreements, the joint ownership of theaters by two nominally competitive studios;
Formula deals, master agreements, and franchises: arrangements by which an exhibitor or distributor allocated profits among theaters that had shown a particular film, and awarded exclusive rights to independent theatres, sometimes without competitive bidding;
Block booking, the studios' practice of requiring theaters to take an entire slate of its films, sometimes without even seeing them, sometimes before the films had even been produced ("blind bidding"), and
Discrimination against smaller, independent theaters in favor of larger chains.
Douglas let stand the District Court's sevenfold test for when a clearance agreement was a restraint of trade, as he agreed they had a legitimate purpose.[6] Pooling agreements and joint ownership, he agreed, were "bald efforts to substitute monopoly for competition ... Clearer restraints of trade we cannot imagine."[7] He allowed, however, that courts could consider how an interest in an exhibitor was acquired and sent some other issues back to the District Court for further inquiry and resolution.[8] He set aside the lower court findings on franchises so that they might be reconsidered from the perspective of allowing competitive bidding.[9] On the block booking question, he rejected the studios' argument that it was necessary to profit from their copyrights: "The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration".[10] The prohibitions on discrimination he let stand entirely.
Frankfurter[edit]
Frankfurter took exception to the extent to which his brethren had agreed with the studios that the District Court had not adequately explored the underlying facts in affirming the consent decree. He pointed to another recent Court decision, International Salt Co. v. United States (332 U.S. 392 (1947)) that lower courts are the proper place for such findings of fact, to be deferred to by higher courts.[11] Also, he reminded the Court that the District Court had spent fifteen months considering the case and reviewed almost 4,000 pages of documentary evidence.[12] "I cannot bring myself to conclude that the product of such a painstaking process of adjudication as to a decree appropriate for such a complicated situation as this record discloses was an abuse of discretion", he said.[12] He would have modified the District Court decision o

joint ownership of theaters by two nominally competitive studios; Formula deals, master agreements, and franchises: arrangements by which an exhibitor or distributor allocated profits among theaters that had shown a particular film, and awarded exclusive rights to independent theatres, sometimes without competitive bidding; Block booking, the studios' practice of requiring theaters to take an entire slate of its films, sometimes without even seeing them, sometimes before the films had even been produced ("blind bidding"), and Discrimination against sm

The Court ruled 7-1 in the government's favor, affirming much of the consent decree (Justice Robert H. Jackson took no part in the proceedings). William O. Douglas delivered the Court's opinion, with Felix Frankfurter dissenting in part, arguing the Court should have left all of the decree intact but its arbitration provisions.
Douglas[edit]
Douglas's opinion reiterated the facts and history of the case and reviewed the District Court's opinion, agreeing that its conclusion was "incontestable".[5] He considered five different trade practices addressed by the consent decree:
Clearances and runs, under which movies were scheduled so they would only be showing at particular theatres at any given time, to avoid competing with another theater's showing;
Pooling agreements, the joint ownership of theaters by two nominally competitive studios;
Formula deals, master agreements, and franchises: arrangements by which an exhibitor or distributor allocated profits among theaters that had shown a particular film, and awarded exclusive rights to independent theatres, sometimes without competitive bidding;
Block booking, the studios' practice of requiring theaters to take an entire slate of its films, sometimes without even seeing them, sometimes before the films had even been produced ("blind bidding"), and
Discrimination against smaller, independent theaters in favor of larger chains.
Douglas let stand the District Court's sevenfold test for when a clearance agreement was a restraint of trade, as he agreed they had a legitimate purpose.[6] Pooling agreements and joint ownership, he agreed, were "bald efforts to substitute monopoly for competition ... Clearer restraints of trade we cannot imagine."[7] He allowed, however, that courts could consider how an interest in an exhibitor was acquired and sent some other issues back to the District Court for further inquiry and resolution.[8] He set aside the lower court findings on franchises so that they might be reconsidered from the perspective of allowing competitive bidding.[9] On the block booking question, he rejected the studios' argument that it was necessary to profit from their copyrights: "The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration".[10] The prohibitions on discrimination he let stand entirely.
Frankfurter[edit]
Frankfurter took exception to the extent to which his brethren had agreed with the studios that the District Court had not adequately explored the underlying facts in affirming the consent decree. He pointed to another recent Court decision, International Salt Co. v. United States (332 U.S. 392 (1947)) that lower courts are the proper place for such findings of fact, to be deferred to by higher courts.[11] Also, he reminded the Court that the District Court had spent fifteen months considering the case and reviewed almost 4,000 pages of documentary evidence.[12] "I cannot bring myself to conclude that the product of such a painstaking process of adjudication as to a decree appropriate for such a complicated situation as this record discloses was an abuse of discretion", he said.[12] He would have modified the District Court decision o

intense movements than the Simpsons Ride. This is currently the most packed ride at the theme park and the ride with the longest wait time. All 3 rides on the lower lot have a single rider line. A single rider can use the single rider as many times he/she may desire to use. Similar to other Universal theme parks around the world, where duplicates of Jurassic Park: The Ride exist, the area surrounding the ride features a Jurassic Park merchandise shop named Jurassic Outfitters[24] an

r includ film that follows the adventures of Shrek    No hand held infants
The Simpsons Ride    May 19, 2008    A family friendly simulator ride adventure through Springfield.    All guests must be at least 40 inches or taller to ride.
Lower lot[edit]
The Lower lot is the smaller of the two lots. There are three thrill rides at this section of the park. All three of the rides have certain height and ride restrictions. It is home to Jurassic Park: The Ride, The NBC Universal Experience, Revenge of the Mummy[22] (where E.T. Adventure once stood) and most recently the home to Transformers: The Ride.[19][25] Jurassic Park: The ride is a water adventure ride. Revenge of the Mummy is a high speed in-door roller coaster. It is considered by some guests as the "scariest/most intense ride" of the park. The last and newest ride at the lower lot is Transformers 3D: The Ride. Transformers 3D: The ride uses high tech technology to simulate 3D technology. It is somewhat similar to the Simpsons Ride, but with actual vehicle movement and includes more intense movements than the Simpsons Ride. This is currently the most packed ride at the theme park and the ride with the longest wait time. All 3 rides on the lower lot have a single rider line. A single rider can use the single rider as many times he/she may desire to use.
Similar to other Universal theme parks around the world, where duplicates of Jurassic Park: The Ride exist, the area surrounding the ride features a Jurassic Park merchandise shop named Jurassic Outfitters[24] and a dining facility named Jurassic Café.[23] Similarly a Revenge of the Mummy gift shop, called Tomb Treasures, greets guests as they exit that ride.[24]
RidesUnited States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Paramount case)

This article needs attention from an expert in U.S. Supreme Court cases. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases (or its Portal) may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008)
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 9–11, 1948
Decided May 3, 1948
Full case name    United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. et al.
Citations    334 U.S. 131 (more)
68 S. Ct. 915; 92 L. Ed. 1260; 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2850; 77 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 243; 1948 Trade Cas. (CCH) P62,244
Prior history    Injunction granted, U.S. District Court (66 F.Supp. 323)
Holding
Practice of block booking and ownership of theater es:King Kong: 360 3-D, the world's largest 3-D experience. The tram closes earlier than oth