Annual report to the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, inc...by...president (1932)

[54} that the sales methods of seUing pictures in blocks have not been shown to have any effect upon competition when the whole field is surveyed, and that it is impossible to say on the evidence that the effect of blockbooking as practiced in the industry unfairly affected competi- tion. On the other hand the court found it may fairly be said that all persons engaged in the production of pictures have been able suc- cessfully to distribute their product and that this has permitted fair competition in the industry. Further, a most illuminating court decision of exceptional interest in regard to the motion picture industry was handed down in the Supreme Court of Ontario on March 7, 1932. This opinion consum- mated a trial lasting several weeks and in which the defendants were charged under Canadian law with conspiracy to prevent or lessen competition. The Combines Investigation Act and Section 498 of the Criminal Code of Canada differ from our American Anti-trust law in that conspiracy cannot be established on the basis of the form and method of an agreement. The agreement must be shown to have had as its purpose and its effect the lessening of competition. Canada Refutes Monopoly Charge The following excerpts from the voluminous decision of Mr. Jus- tice Garrow indicate the sweeping approval which he gave the indus- try in connection with his finding of not guilty against the defendants: A. "The main question of fact here involved so far as the Com- bines Act is concerned, is this. Has the evidence established that there existed during the years mentioned between the accused, or some of them, an actual or tacit agreement entered into within this Province which had or was designed to have the effect of preventing or lessen-