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.
APPENDIX III THE CONSENT DECREE "And the return of an industry to the competitive design is so rare a product of litigation. * * *" i After years of charges and counter charges of unfair trade practices by members of the motion picture industry and the theater-going pubhc, the Department of Justice on July 20, 1938, filed a petition in equity ^ against the five major producer-distributor-exhibitor com- panies (Paramount, Loew's, Radio-Keith-Orpheum, Warner Bros., and Twentieth Century-Fox) and the tlu-ee large producer-distributors (United Artists, Columbia, and Universal) charging them with com- bining and conspiring to retrain trade and commerce in the production, distribution, and exhibition of motion pictures in the United States, and with attempting successfully to monopolize such trade and com- merce in violation of the Sherman Act. In this petition and in its amended and supplemental complaint of November 14, 1940, the Department of Justice listed the various ways by which it allege these purposes were accomplished. The following were among the offenses charged against the eight companies: Mutual loaning of production personnel and equipment without extending these privileges to independent producers on the same terms. Fixing of license terms in contracts before licensees have the opportunity to estimate the value and character of films and before trade .showing or completion of films. Fixing of run, clearance, and minimum admission price terms. Conditioning the licensing of one group of films on that of another. Conditioning the licensing of films in one theater upon licensing in other theaters under common ownership or control. Discrimination with respect to license terms granted to theaters in large circuits because they are part of a circuit. In discriminating between circuits and independent theaters, it is alleged that these companies^— Make exclusive contracts with circuit theaters in some localities. Withhold prints to give circuit theaters clearance not agreed to in contracts. Permit negotiation of unfair clearance by circuits. Set minimum admission prices of independent exhibitors so that they cannot successfully compete with circuit theaters. Prohibit independent exhibitors from playing on a double-feature program a picture previously played by a circuit theater. Grant selective contracts to circuit theaters but not to independents. Designate play dates. Force short subjects aJid newsreels on independent theaters. Charge independent theaters higher film rentals than circuits in equivalent situations. Partially defray advertising costs of circuit theaters, but not those of inde- pendents. Require that independent theaters, but not circuit theaters, pay score charges. ' Temporary National Economic Committee, Monograph 16, "Antitrust in Action," Walton Hamilton and Irene Till, 1940, p. 57. * United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., et al., op. eit. 73