kes reward to the owner a secondary consideration".[10] The prohibitions on discrimination he let stand entirely. Frankfurter[edit] Frankfurter took exce

 exhibitor or distributor allocated profits among theaters that had shown a particular film, and awarded exclusive rights to independent theatres, sometimes without competitive bidding;Block booking, the studios' practice of requiring theaters to take an entire slate of its films, sometimes without even seeing them, sometimes before the films had even been produced ("blind bidding"), andDiscrimination against smaller, independent theaters in favor of larger chains.Douglas let stand the District Court's sevenfold test for when a clearance agreement...

Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 Decision

Majority    DouglasConcur/dissent    FrankfurterJackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.Laws appliedSherman 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...