Document: 334 U.S. 100 68 S.Ct. 941 92 L.Ed. 1236 UNITED STATESv.GRIFFITH et al. No. 64. Argued Dec. 15, 1947. Decided May 3, 1948. Appeal from the District Court of United States for Western Oklahoma. Mr. Robert L. Wright, Washington, D.C., appellant. Charles B. Cochran, Oklahoma City, Okl., appellees. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. 1 This is a suit brought by in to prevent and restrain appellees violating §§ 2 Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 20 693, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, U.S.C.A. 2. The Court, finding there was no violation Act any respects charged complaint, dismissed complaint on merits. F.Supp. 180. case here appeal under § Expediting February 11, 1903, 32 823, 29, 238 Judicial Code, amended 13, 1925, 43 936, 938, 28 345, 345. are four affiliated corporations two individuals who associated with them stockholders officers.1 operate (or own stock which operate) moving picture theatres Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico. With minor exceptions, each corporation owns do not compete those its affiliates but separate towns. In April, 1939, when filed, corporate had interests 85 towns were competing theatres. Fifty-three (62 percent) closed towns, i.e., Five years earlier approximately 37 18 competitive 19 (51 per cent) closed. It during that five-year period acts an practices occurred which, according allegations constitute violations Act. 3 Prior 1938—1939 season these exhibitors used common agent negotiate distributors films entire circuit.2 Beginning 1968—1939 one negotiated circuit represented appellees, another other A master agreement usually executed distributor covering be released season.3 There variations among agreements. But main they provided follows: (a) They lumped together competition (b) generally licensed first-run exhibition practically all substantial interest substantially year.4 (c) specified second runs second-run rental sometimes being included rental. (d) often total minimum required paid (in equal weekly or quarterly installments) whole use throughout circuit, subsequently allocating where exhibited. (e) Films could played out order their release, so film need particular theatre at time.5 4 certain exclusive privileges granted appellee over competitors unreasonably restrained preventing obtaining enough first-or distributors6 successfully. preemption selection receipt clearances also buying power acquiring violated 5 found conspiracy between distributors, agreements h ich distributed restraint trade; did monopolize attempt licensing supply first run subsequent run; conspire compel grant privilege selecting before made available exhibitor; defendants granting unreasonable clearances; gave advantage competitors; condition situation such non-competitive situation, vice versa. 6 appellant introduced evidence designed show effect some twenty-odd situations. detailed findings this phase difficulties getting desirable after entered inroads business competitors, purchases result threats coercion nor unlawful conspiracy, solely consequence lawful practices. 7 v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 173, 65 254, 89 650, group exhibitors, we have present case, pooling negotiation similar here. difference one, deemed vital, former avowed purpose eliminating monopoly several while exist To more specific, through increased leverage situations insisting given rights competition, else would give 8 is, however, always necessary find specific intent trade build anti-trust laws been violated. sufficient results defendant's conduct arrangements. Pattern, 226 525, 543, 33 141, 145, 57 333, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 325; Masonite Corporation, 316 265, 275, 62 1070, 1076, 86 1461. require greater showing cripple As stated Aluminum Co. America, Cir., 148 F.2d 416, 432, 'no monopolist monopolizes unconscious what he doing.' Specific sense law term only fall short condemned classical statement Holmes speaking Swift & States, 196 375, 396, 25 276, 279, 49 518: 9 'Where themselves produce seeks prevent—for instance, further addition mere forces nature bring pass, it pass dangerous probability will happen. Commonwealth Peaslee, 177 Mass. 267, 272, 59 N.E. 55. consequent exist, statute, like many others, cases, directs itself against well completed result.' 10 And see v.A luminum supra, pages 431, 432. so, even if accept Court's monopolize, left question whether direct restraining monopolizing within meaning 11 Anyone operates single town, acquires right exhibit film, has popular sense. does violate unless acquired maintained his strategic position, sought expand monopoly, expanded means restraints cognizable 1. For things large measure merely end products violates Standard Oil Jersey 221 61, 31 502, 516, 55 619, 34 L.R.A., N.S., 834, Ann.Cas.1912D, 734. true. Section covers contracts, combinations, conspiracies trade.7 restricted combinations monopolize8 makes crime person part interstate foreign commerce. So power, lawfully unlawfully acquired, may evil stand though remains unexercised.9 aimed, inter alia, acquisition retention effective market control. See 428, 429. Hence existence 'to exclude desired so' coupled exercise power. American Tobacco 328 781, 809, 811, 814, 66 1125, 1139, 1140, 1141, 90 1575. indeed 'unreasonable, se, foreclose market.' International Salt 332 392, 12, 15. much prevention destruction. supra. follows fortiori however gain advantage, destroy competitor, unlawful. 12 man town commands entrance into area. If uses position acquire city employing weapon competitors. feeble, ineffective town. increase number region, crushing places.10 He crass make Though threat withhold distriu tors him likely same joined. When using empire. assume accomplish absent, chargeable legal contemplation since did. Patten, page 325. 13 basis otherwise That exhibitor bargain lump either misuse can beget becomes feeble instrument indeed. Large-scale not, course, se. yield price advantages buyer. Nor, hold Paramount Pictures, Inc., 131, 915, stifle denying less favorably situated access market. 14 Appellees concededly obtain films. Their linked No effort concealment evidenced fact times amount whole. Monopoly form bargained obtained. These privileges, acquired. having combined rights, formed plain course commerce affected interstate. 180, 183, 184, 259, 650. What actually growth Griffith know. started assumption wholly lawful, naturally attributed thus treated legitimate weapons competition. Since driven business, impeded coercion, concluded ways complaint. plainly inadequate start, must, premise employed. On record read it, cannot doubted circuit. Its extent must determined remand cause. We remit problem fashioning decree undo near wrongs done prv ent recurrence future. 189, 190, 262, 650; Schine Chain Theatres 110, 947; 915. 16 Reversed. 17 FRANKFURTER dissents, reasons set forth MURPHY JACKSON took consideration decision case. Consolidated Theatres, R. E. Westex H. J. Griffith, C. Griffith. brother defendant, died pending action revived estate personal representative. includes exhibitors. than full ownership contract provide booking exclusively hands interests. individual exhibitor. few franchise years, three instance five years. City second, first, frequently conditioned playing of, paying for, designated quantity obligation portions season. Those eight major originally defendants. charge conspired eliminated stipulation motion retained. provides: 'Every contract, combination trust otherwise, nations, hereby declared illegal. * *' shall combine persons, guilty misdemeanor *.' never 789, 1129, said Steel 251 417, 451, 40 293, 299, 64 343, A.L.R. 1121, size outlawed earmark Moreover, Cardozo, 286 106, 116, 52 460, 463, 76 999, 'size carries opportunity abuse ignored proved utilized past.'

Category: 7