of early exhibition of feature pictures distributed by the defendants. When said features are released to the plaintiff and other independent exhibitors, they have lost some of their commercial value. The plaintiff and other independent exhibitors have been able to secure greater box office returns by the exhibition of "double feature" programs than by the exhibition of single feature programs, and the effect of prohibiting the exhibition of "doubel feature" programs is to reduce their income.
7. Plaintiff and other independent exhibitors have exhibited two feature pictures on a single program as an additional attraction to their patrons to overcome the reduced attractiveness of feature pictures previously shown in theaters enjoying the early exhibition privileges.
8. Plaintiff and other independent exhibitors contract for pictures distributed by defendants under a system known as "block booking"; that is, the leasing of a number or group of pictures, the subjects, titles, or time of availability of which are not known when the contract is made.
9. The producers of motion pictures are divided into two classes; one commonly known as "major" producers, and the other commonly known as "independent" producers. All the defendants are either "major" producers or are the distributors of the motion pictures produced by the "major" producers. The defendants produce and distribute a great majority of all feature films and short subject films produced and exhibited in the United States.
10. The films distributed by the defendants and exhibited by the plaintiff and others in Philadelphia are received into Pennsylvania from other states and are the subject of interstate commerce.
11. The requirements of motion picture theaters differ with each locality and depend upon the preference of the patrons and the novelty of their attractions.
12. Plaintiff and other independent exhibitors require the feature films produced by the major producers in order to maintain their theaters, and they are required to sign the defendants' contracts in order to procure such features.
13. Plaintiff and other independent exhibitors cannot survive in business by exhibiting only feature films produced by the independent producers.
14. The clauses in defendants' contracts prohibiting the exhibition of their feature films as part of a double feature program have caused the plaintiff and other independent exhibitors to purchase fewer feature pictures for exhibition purposes than they would have purchased if they were permitted to use such features on double feature programs.
15. The said clauses have resulted in a reduction of the number of feature films produced, sold, or leased by independent major producers.
16. The exhibition of two feature films on a single program requires more pictures to be produced and sold, and the clauses prohibiting the use of films as part of double feature programs reduces the number of pictures required to be produced.
17. The clauses in defendants' contracts prohibiting the use of their features as part of a double feature program tends to reduce the business of the independent producer and to create a monopoly in the production and distribution of pictures in the major producers, the defendant distributors and their affiliated exhibitors.
18. The use of said clauses tends to restrict plaintiff and other independent exhibitors in their purchases of films from competitors of defendants, and thereby to lessen competition among distributors and their respective producers.
19. Defendants have by agreement determined to prohibit the use of feature films distributed by them in conjunction with any other feature films on a double feature program, and have persisted in such agreement.
20. Defendants have entered into a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade amongst the several states and have carried out the purpose of said combination by inserting in their distribution contracts the respective clauses prohibiting the use of their feature films with other feature films on double feature programs.
21. Defendants have combined and conspired among themselves, and with others, to insert in their respective contracts the double feature clauses which tend to create a monopoly in the trade and commerce among the several states of distributing and exhibiting of motion pictures.
From the above facts as found the court makes the following:
Conclusions of Law.
1. The defendants have entered into a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the serveral states.
2. The combination or conspiracy of the defendants lessens competition and tends to create a monopoly in trade or commerce among the several states.
3. Defendants have violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (July 2, 1890, c. 647, § 1 [ 15 USCA § 1]) and the Clayton Act (October 15, 1914, c. 323, § 3, 38 Stat. 731 [ 15 USCA § 14]) by inserting in their contracts with plaintiff and other exhibitors provisions prohibiting the exhibition of feature films distributed by the defendants, in conjunction with other feature films on a double feature program.
4. Defendants have entered into contracts, and have combined and conspired to enter into contracts, with the plaintiff and other exhibitors for the leasing to feature motion picture films, on condition, agreement, and understanding that the plaintiff and said other exhibitors shall not use the motion pictures of others except as limited therein, the effect of which is to deter the plaintiff and others from using feature pictures of other producers and tends to create a monopoly in interstate commerce.
5. The provisions in defendants' contracts prohibiting the use of the feature films, distributed by them, on double feature programs, violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act [ 15 USCA §§ 1-7, 15 note] and the Clayton Act [38 Stat. 730] and are illegal and void.
6. The court has jurisdiction of this cause under sections 16 and 12 of the Clayton Act [ 15 USCA §§ 26 and 22].
7. Plaintiff by reason of the combination and conspiracy between the defendants has been and is threatened with loss or damage and he has the right to maintain the present action.
8. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction commanding defendants to cease and discontinue their agreement, combination, and conspiracy to prohibit the exhibition of the feature films distributed by defendants in conjunction with other feature films on double feature programs, and restraining defendants from making such prohibition a part of any contract with the plaintiff, and from penalizing plaintiff in any manner because of the exhibition of their feature films on double feature programs in conjunction with any other feature film.
A decree may be prepared by counsel in conformity with the findings and conclusions herein.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.