My Own Argument

I agree with the Supreme Court decision in this case. There decision was justified by the stipulations outlined in the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The film industry should not be treated less than any other major corporation in the world. I feel that no company should be allowed to monopolize their particular industry, yet it still seems to be evident within the United states today. We see this with the potential idea of the monopolization of Microsoft. I feel that all businesses should have to compete to survive. If a business is being monopolized it does not allow for other individuals in the world to start their own business in that field to compete with any of the larger corporations. We as a society should all have an opportunity to become millionaires. We should not have to draw our attention to other things just because one person is monopolizing that particular industry. Why should we have to start out at the bottom when we can start at the top. The wealth of an idea should be spread around and not held by just one individual.

Rule of Law

The main precedent to this case is the Sherman Anti-trust Act. The major film companies were in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the act. The companies were in turn found guilty of violating theses major acts. Section one has to do with restraint of illegal trade. It says that any person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony. Section two deals with the monopolizing of trade. It states that every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade of commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony. Since the movie studios were found guilty of these violations it set the precedent for independent film makers to be free of large studio interference.
(http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html)

Reasoning of the Court

There were many different rationales behind the decision of the court. The Court found that price fixing conspiracies existed between all defendants. It found that there was a conspiracy to restrain trade by imposing "unreasonable clearances". They found that exhibitor defendants had "pooling agreements" with the studios. The profits were being shared by exhibitors and the studios. These agreements eliminated competition. It found that the defendants had discriminated against small independent exhibitor and favored larger affiliated exhibitors. The court found that on the subject of monopoly that the need for divestiture are set aside in the light of the principal stated in the Unites States v. Griffith and in Schine Chain Theaters v. the united States.

Decision of the Court

The ruling By the Supreme Court was handed down May 4, 1948. The court ruled 7-1 in the government's favor. William O. Douglas delivered the Court's opinion. The court found the studios guilty of violating antitrust laws. The verdict of the court went against the studios forcing them to sell their movie theater chains. The Supreme Court abolished block booking requiring all films be sold on an individual basis. Block booking is a system of selling multiple films to a theater as a unit. Studios used block booking to force independent theater owners to take large number of studio movies sight unseen. The Court ruled that price fixing conspiracies would no longer exist and the movie studios could no longer force exhibitors to charge minimal admission prices. Consequences of the court's decision were more independent producers and studios could produce there film products free of major studio interference and the loss of studios' rights to own their own classic film libraries. The results of the case forced studios to charge higher rents to exhibitors distributing their movies. It also forced an increase in ticket prices. (http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountcase_6supreme1948.htm)

How I feel about the Supreme court?

The Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for settling disputes and interpreting the meaning of laws. Does the Supreme Court do this affectively? I feel that in some ways that it does. I feel that the Supreme Court has made many affective decisions throughout its history. Have all of these decisions been determined affectively? I think that this theory can be argued. Many questions can be posed about the Supreme Court. Should there be more men then woman? Should the views of the justices vary? Should there views be conservative or liberal? Should they have different or the same religious faiths? Should the members be of different ethnic backgrounds? Should there be more than just 9 members? Do any of these questions have any determination at all? In my opinion these views really do not have any threat to the Courts decision making as long as they are making their decisions based off of the determination of the law. When a chief justice becomes out of line and bases their decisions solely on their own opinion rather than the interpretation of the law than the Supreme Court can be found to be a little corrupt. This can open up the forum as to whether or not we need to have members of different backgrounds or do we just need to maybe get some fresh faces in the Supreme Court more often?
Elected members of the Supreme Court are elected for life. I feel like a life membership is a little flawed. I feel that as a justice ages their views of the law age with them and that they may not be as open to change as someone from a younger generation. If they put a limit on the term there would be different individuals revolving through the doors that would have a lot of fresh interpretation of the law.

Issue of the Case

In 1948 the case The United States Vs. Paramount Pictures Inc came before the Supreme Court. The major issue in this case was anti-trust. Anti-trust laws prohibit agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities, ban abusive behavior by firms dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that lead to a dominant position, and supervise mergers and acquisitions of large corporations and some joint ventures. By 1945, major movie studios owned either partially or outright 17% of the theaters in the country, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue.
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.
The studios basically controlled everything. The court complaint charged that the producer defendants had attempted to monopolize and had monopolized the production of motion pictures. The complaint also charged that all the defendants, as distributors, had conspired to restrain and monopolize and had restrained and monopolized interstate trade in the distribution and exhibition of films by specific practices.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/131/case.html.
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony” http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act