ler, independent theaters in favor of larger chains. Douglas let stand the District Court's sevenfold test for when a clearance agreement was a restraint of trade, as he agreed they had a legitimate purpose.[6] Pooling agreements and joint ownership, he agreed, were "bald efforts to substitute monopoly for competition ... Clearer restraints of trade we cannot imagine."[7] He allo

er the end of World War II.[4]
The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948. The verdict went against the movie studios, forcing all of them to divest themselves of their movie theater chains. In addition to Paramount, RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., Loew's, 20th Century-Fox Film Corporation, Columbia Pictures Corporation, Universal-International, Warner Bros., the American Theatres Association and W.C. Allred (the former of which no longer exists as a film studio) were named as defendants.
This, coupled with the advent of television and the attendant drop in movie ticket sales, brought about a severe slump in the movie business, a slump that would not be reversed until 1972, with the release of The Godfather, the first modern blockbuster.
The Paramount decision is a bedrock of corporate antitrust law, and as such is cited in most cases where issues of vertical integration play a prominent role in restricting fair trade.
Decision[edit]

The Court ruled 7-1 in the government's favor, affirming much of the consent decree (Justice Robert H. Jackson took no part in the proceedings). William O. Douglas delivered the Court's opinion, with Felix Frankfurter dissenting in part, arguing the Court should have left all of the decree intact but its arbitration provisions.
Douglas[edit]
Douglas's opinion reiterated the facts and history of the case and reviewed the District Court's opinion, agreeing that its conclusion was "incontestable".[5] He considered five different trade practices addressed by the consent decree:
Clearances and runs, under which movies were scheduled so they would only be showing at particular theatres at any given time, to avoid competing with another theater's showing;
Pooling agreements, the joint ownership of theaters by two nominally competitive studios;
Formula deals, master agreements, and franchises: arrangements by which an 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"), and
Discrimination against smaller, independent theaters in favor of larger chains.
Douglas let stand the District Court's sevenfold test for when a clearance agreement was a restraint of trade, as he agreed they had a legitimate purpose.[6] Pooling agreements and joint ownership, he agreed, were "bald efforts to substitute monopoly for competition ... Clearer restraints of trade we cannot imagine."[7] He allowed, however, that courts could consider how an interest in an exhibitor was acquired and sent some other issues back to the District Court for further inquiry and resolution.[8] He set aside the lower court findings on franchises so that they might be reconsidered from the perspective of allowing competitive bidding.[9] On the block booking question, he rejected the studios' argument that it was necessary to profit from their copyrights: "The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration".[10] The prohibitions on discrimination he let stand entirely.
Frankfurter[edit]
Frankfurter took exception to the extent to which his brethren had agreed with the studios that the District Court had not adequately explored the underlying facts in affirming the consent decree. He pointed to another recent Court decision, International Salt Co. v. United States (332 U.S. 392 (1947)) that lower courts are the proper place for such findings of fact, to be deferred to by higher courts.[11] Also, he reminded the Court that the District Court had spent fifteen months considering the case and reviewed almost 4,000 pages of documentary evidence.[12] "I cannot bring myself to conclude that the product of such a painstaking process of adjudication as to a decree appropriate for such a complicated situation as this record discloses was an abuse of discretion", he said.[12] He would have modified the District Court decision only to permit the use of arbitration to

d, creating a de facto oligopoly. By 1945, the studios owned either partially or outright 17% of the theaters in the country, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue.[1] Ultimately, this issue of the studios' unfair trade practices would be the reason behind all the major movie studios being sued in 1938 by the U.S. Department of Justice. Coincidentally, the Society of Independent Motion

Case opinions
Majority    Douglas
Concur/dissent    Frankfurter
Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Sherman 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 decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited.[citation needed] The Court held in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements.
The case is important both in U.S. antitrust law and film history. In the former, it remains a landmark decision in vertical integration cases; in the latter, it is seen as the first nail in the coffin of the old Hollywood studio system.
Contents  [hide]
1 Background
2 Decision
2.1 Douglas
2.2 Frankfurter
3 Consequences
4 See also
5 References
Background[edit]

The legal issues originated in the silent era, when the Federal Trade Commission began investigating film companies for potential violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.
The major film studios owned the theaters where their motion pictures were shown, either in partnerships or outright and complete. Thus specific theater chains showed only the films produced by the studio that owned them. The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff ("under contract" as it was called), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned: In other words, the studios were vertically integrated, creating a de facto oligopoly. By 1945, the studios owned either partially or outright 17% of the theaters in the country, accounting for 45% of the film-rental revenue.[1]
Ultimately, this issue of the studios' unfair trade practices would be the reason behind all the major movie studios being sued in 1938 by the U.S. Department of Justice. Coincidentally, the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers a group led by Mary Pickford, Samuel Goldwyn, Walter Wanger, and others filed a lawsuit against Paramount Detroit Theaters in 1942, the first major lawsuit of producers against exhibitors.
The federal government's case, filed in 1938, was settled with a consent decree in 1940,[2] which allowed the government to reinstate the lawsuit if, in three years' time, it had not seen a satisfactory level of compliance. Among other requirements, the consent decree included the following conditions:
The Big Five studios could no longer block-book short film subjects along with feature films (known as one-shot, or full force, block booking);
the Big Five studios could continue to block-book features, but the block size would be limited to five films;
(3) blind buying (buying of films by theater districts without seeing films beforehand) would now be outlawed and replaced with "trade showing," special screenings every two weeks at which representatives of all 31 theater districts in the United States could see films before they decided to book a film; and
the creation of an administration board to enforce these requirements.[3] The film industry did not satisfactorily meet the requirements of the consent decree, forcing the government to reinstate the lawsuit—as promised—three years later, in 1943. The case went to trial—with now all of the Big Eight as defendants—on October 8, 1945, months aft

able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008) United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 9–11, 1948 Decided May 3, 1948 Full case name Unite

ght requirement. Small children are highly recommended to be guided by a guardian. Small children are typically assign seats in the middle aisle of the tram for safety reasons.
Shrek 4D    May 23, 2003    A family friendly 4D film that follows the adventures of Shrek    No hand held infants
The Simpsons Ride    May 19, 2008    A family friendly simulator ride adventure through Springfield.    All guests must be at least 40 inches or taller to ride.
Lower lot[edit]
The Lower lot is the smaller of the two lots. There are three thrill rides at this section of the park. All three of the rides have certain height and ride restrictions. It is home to Jurassic Park: The Ride, The NBC Universal Experience, Revenge of the Mummy[22] (where E.T. Adventure once stood) and most recently the home to Transformers: The Ride.[19][25] Jurassic Park: The ride is a water adventure ride. Revenge of the Mummy is a high speed in-door roller coaster. It is considered by some guests as the "scariest/most intense ride" of the park. The last and newest ride at the lower lot is Transformers 3D: The Ride. Transformers 3D: The ride uses high tech technology to simulate 3D technology. It is somewhat similar to the Simpsons Ride, but with actual vehicle movement and includes more intense movements than the Simpsons Ride. This is currently the most packed ride at the theme park and the ride with the longest wait time. All 3 rides on the lower lot have a single rider line. A single rider can use the single rider as many times he/she may desire to use.
Similar to other Universal theme parks around the world, where duplicates of Jurassic Park: The Ride exist, the area surrounding the ride features a Jurassic Park merchandise shop named Jurassic Outfitters[24] and a dining facility named Jurassic Café.[23] Similarly a Revenge of the Mummy gift shop, called Tomb Treasures, greets guests as they exit that ride.[24]
RidesUnited States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Paramount case)

This article needs attention from an expert in U.S. Supreme Court cases. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases (or its Portal) may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008)
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 9–11, 1948
Decided May 3, 1948
Full case name    United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. et al.
Citations    334 U.S. 131 (more)
68 S. Ct. 915; 92 L. Ed. 1260; 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2850; 77 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 243; 1948 Trade Cas. (CCH) P62,244
Prior history    Injunction granted, U.S. District Court (66 F.Supp. 323)
Holding
Practice of block booking and ownership of theater chains by film studios constituted anti-competitive and monopolistic trade practices.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton

10 References 11 External links Attractions[edit]

 31, 2001. Universal Studios Japan reached the milestone of attracting the first ten million visitors faster than any other theme park in the world. A total of eleven million guests visited Universal Studios Japan in its first year of operation.[1] USJ is believed[by whom?] to have attracted 8.8 million visitors in fiscal year 2011, although the company does not officially disclose the number. The number of visitors had been in a downtrend after the highest attendance was recorded in the first year. Fiscal 2011 was the tenth anniversary year, and various commemorative events were implemented. As a result, attendance in this year achieved growth from the previous year’s approximate eight million.[2] Universal Studios Japan greeted its 100 millionth visitor on Monday, October 29, 2012, since its opening in 2001.[3] According to 2011 Theme Index Global Attraction Attendance Report, Universal Studios Japan is ranked ninth among the top 25 amusement/theme parks worldwide, attracting 8.5 million visitors in 2011, which is 4.2% larger than in the previous year.[4]
Contents  [hide]
1 Attractions
1.1 New York
1.2 Hollywood
1.3 San Francisco
1.4 Jurassic Park
1.5 Snoopy Studios
1.6 Hello Kitty Fashion Avenue
1.7 Sesame Street Fun Zone
1.8 Lagoon
1.9 Water World
1.10 Amity Village
2 Former attractions
2.1 Land of Oz (closed in 2011)
3 Awards
4 Attendance
5 Official hotels
6 Universal CityWalk Osaka
7 Awards
8 Incidents
9 See also
10 References
11 External links
Attractions[edit]

The attractions are arranged in nine areas of the park.[5] A tenth area, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, will open by 2014 with its flagship attraction, Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey. The area will be modelled on the areas of the same names at Universal Orlando and Universal Studios Hollywood.[6]
New York[edit]


The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man attraction.
The Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man
Terminator 2:3-D
Hollywood[edit]


4-D Theatre
Shrek's 4-D Adventure