1943. The case went to trial—with now all of the Big Eight as defendants—on October 8, 1945, months after the end of World War II.[4] The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948. The verdict went against the movie studios, forcing all of them to divest themselves of their movie

e first major lawsuit of producers against exhibitors.
The federal government's case, filed in 1938, was settled with a consent decree in 1940,[2] which allowed the government to reinstate the lawsuit if, in three years' time, it had not seen a satisfactory level of compliance. Among other requirements, the consent decree included the following conditions:
The Big Five studios could no longer block-book short film subjects along with feature films (known as one-shot, or full force, block booking);
the Big Five studios could continue to block-book features, but the block size would be limited to five films;
(3) blind buying (buying of films by theater districts without seeing films beforehand) would now be outlawed and replaced with "trade showing," special screenings every two weeks at which representatives of all 31 theater districts in the United States could see films before they decided to book a film; and
the creation of an administration board to enforce these requirements.[3] The film industry did not satisfactorily meet the requirements of the consent decree, forcing the government to reinstate the lawsuit—as promised—three years later, in 1943. The case went to trial—with now all of the Big Eight as defendants—on October 8, 1945, months after the end of World War II.[4]
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948. The verdict went against the movie studios, forcing all of them to divest themselves of their movie theater chains. In addition to Paramount, RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., Loew's, 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation, Columbia Pictures Corporation, Universal-International, Warner Bros., the American Theatres Association and W.C. Allred (the former of which no longer exists as a film studio) were named as defendants.
This, coupled with the advent of television and the attendant drop in movie ticket sales, brought about a severe slump in the movie business, a slump that would not be reversed until 1972, with the release of The Godfather, the first modern blockbuster.
The Paramount decision is a bedrock of corporate antitrust law, and as such is cited in most cases where issues of vertical integration play a prominent role in restricting fair trade.
Decision[edit]

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 award

latter, it is seen as the first nail in the coffin of the old Hollywood studio system. Contents [hide]

Sherman Antitrust Act; 15 U.S.C. § 1, 2
    Wikisource has original text related to this article:
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree) was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited.[citation needed] The Court held in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements.
The case is important both in U.S. antitrust law and film history. In the former, it remains a landmark decision in vertical integration cases; in the latter, it is seen as the first nail in the coffin of the old Hollywood studio system.
Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 Decision
2.1 Douglas
2.2 Frankfurter
3 Consequences
4 See also
5 References
Background[edit]

The legal issues originated in the silent era, when the Federal Trade Commission began investigating film companies for potential violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
The major film studios owned the theaters where their motion pictures were shown, either in partnerships or outright and complete. Thus specific theater chains showed only the films produced by the studio that owned them. The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff ("under contract" as it was called), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned: In other words, the studios were vertically integrated, creating a de facto oligopoly. By 1945, the studios owned either partially or outright 17% of the theaters in the country, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue.[1]
Ultimately, this issue of the studios' unfair trade practices would be the reason behind all the major movie studios being sued in 1938 by the U.S. Department of Justice. Coincidentally, the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers a group led by Mary Pickford, Samuel Goldwyn, Walter Wanger, and others filed a lawsuit against Paramount Detroit Theaters in 1942, th

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

ower 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 chains by film studios constituted anti-competitive and monopolistic trade practices.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton
Case opinions
Majority    Douglas
Concur/dissent    Frankfurter
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied