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.
fr«<rp *lte import**** ^rcivo* «** *!»* ?*«<#•
i-trii-vt’. wit *f rtwt ¥&*)•>$. THiwtrc <*£«*<«** ^^®,r/5*ibitor 4to>i‘gt*4'##4*. THt M* f '••*'« *'
,H C^*» rufin, b*f<fc« &
“IT’S A
CRAZY BUSINESS”
■ There are numerous factors which, in the judg¬ ment of the distributor, may be determinative of the relative superiority of bids and offers submitted and of the degree to which they correspond to the ex¬ pected earning potential of the picture. . .
■ We entertain serious doubt that anything other than independent judgment motivated the decisions to split product. However, resolution of the issue will not be necessary to the decision in this case. . .
■ The failure to include all exhibitors in the split system will not render it illegal in the absence of evidence that it was so employed as to unreason¬ ably restrict the competitive market, or had this re¬ sult. We decline to hold the split system to be pe->se illegal , and we do not consider the system, stand¬ ing alone, as evidence of a conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws. . .
■ There is no evidence from which it can be in¬ ferred that the plaintiff teas “required” to offer ex¬ cessive rental terms. There is likewise no evidence which would warrant a conclusion that the plaintiff was under any compulsion to offer guarantees which later proved to be excessive. The record is devoid of proof from which it can be inferred that any dis¬ tributor was aivare that the film rentals offered were deemed by the plaintiff to be unreasonable. The rental terms were voluntarily proposed by the plaintiff: the acceptance of those terms by the dis¬ tributors would not permit an inference that plain¬ tiff was required to offer them. . .
■ We are convinced that the trial time coidd have been shortened considerably with a concomitant re¬ duction in the size of the record if the attorneys had made a conscientious effort to (1) stipulate matters in which there was no dispute; (2) specify the issues with particularity; and (3) formulate an efficient trial plan. The condition of the present record clearly indicates that there was tw such effort here.
OPINION OF THE COURT
(Filed June 21, 1963)
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
VIKINC THEATRE CORPORATION
PARAMOUNT FILM DISTRIBUTING CORP., ET AL.
■ see editorial — page 3