Document: 371 U.S. 38 83 S.Ct. 97 9 L.Ed.2d 11 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.LOEW'S, INCORPORATED, et al. LOEW'S, al., Appellants, v. STATES. C & SUPER CORP., Appellant, Nos. 42—44. Argued Oct. 16, 1962. Decided Nov. 5, Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for appellant in No. 42 and appellee 43 44. Louis Nizer, New York City, appellees appellants 43, Loew's Incorporated, Associated Artists Production, Inc. United Corporation. Myles J. Lane, Screen Gems, Mervin C. Pollak, Justin Golenbock, 42, National Telefilm Associates, Mr. Justice GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of Court. 1 These consolidated appeals present as a key question validity under § Sherman Act1 block booking copyrighted feature motion pictures television exhibition. We hold that tying agreements here are illegal violation Act. 2 The States brought separate civil antitrust actions Southern District 1957 against six major distributors pre-1948 picture films exhibition, alleging each defendant had engaged complaints asserted defendants had, selling to stations, conditioned license or sale one more upon acceptance by station package containing unwanted inferior films. No combination conspiracy among was alleged; nor any monopolization attempt monopolize Act averred. sole claim illegality rested on manner which marketed its product. successful pressure applied customers accept along with desirable gravamen complaint. 3 After lengthy trial, district judge filed exhaustive findings fact, conclusions law, carefully reasoned opinion, 189 F.Supp. 373, he found constituted violations conclusional finding fact law 4 '* * several have each, from time extent set forth specific licensed offered stations condition licensee also other such films, have, refused, expressly impliedly, unless were accepted licensee.' F.Supp., at 397—398. 5 recognized there keen competition between distributors, therefore his conclusion solely individual behavior engaging booking. In reaching decision considered evidence relating 68 licensing Government contended involved He concluded only 25 contracts illegally entered into. Nine these belonged Super Corp., an admitted policy insisting it sought justify special grounds. 6 Of others, Loew's, two negotiations resulted declined furnish KWTV Oklahoma City WBRE Wilkes-Barre film prices refused their requests permission select groups. exacted contract entire library 723 involving payments $314,725.20. agreement 100 total $15,000. 7 Defendant Inc., booked contracts, both WTOP calling 26 $20,800 52 $40,000. testimony officials they requested right refused. 8 Productions, negotiated four be booked. Station pay $118,800 99 pictures, divided into three groups 33 based differences quality. To get 'Treasure Sierra Madre,' 'Casablanca,' 'Johnny Belinda,' 'Sergeant York,' 'The Man Who Came Dinner,' take 'Nancy Drew Troubleshooter,' 'Tugboat Annie Sails Again,' 'Kid Nightingale,' 'Gorilla Man,' 'Tear Gas Squad.' A similar fee $140,000, WMAR Baltimore. Triangle Publications, owner operator five Associated's packages, ultimately purchased 754 price $2,262,000 plus 10% gross receipts. WJAR Providence, 58 features $25,230, asked first if certain undesirable could dropped packages told not split. Associates contracts. wanted 10 Selznick but them bought 24 'TNT' 12 'Fabulous 40's.' It all these, $62,240. WBRE, before buying 'Fox 52' entirety $7,358.50, eliminate features. WWLP Springfield, Massachusetts, inquired about possibility splitting this possible, then 59 $8,850. full National's 'Rocket 86' group 86 KPIX San Francisco, $232,200, after denied package. drop British defendant's 'Champagne 58' package, none deleted, $31,000. Corporation consummated purchase 'Top 39' WAAM Baltimore $40,000 receipt refusal sell 13 39 WHTN Huntington, West Virginia, 'Award $16,900 deal basis than Thirty-nine $5,850 initial inquiry selection titles Since overall booking, court did analyze particular circumstances nine C's policies least having 'certain unplayable since foreign language sound track.' 389. final judgments defendants, wherein enjoined '(A) Conditioning tying, attempting tie, exhibit over film; 14 '(B) exhibition film, 15 '(C) Entering differential when sold alone same (sic) has effect conditioning films.' All except Telefilm2 appeal decree. Artists, raise identical issues 43. raises additional issues, is separately numbered Government, although won merits below, asserts cross-appeal (No. 42) scope specificity decree Court inadequate prevent continued attainment objectives. seeks broadened number ways. below oppose modifications. cases direct Expediting Act, 32 Stat. 823, amended, U.S.C. 29, U.S.C.A. 29. noted probable jurisdiction, 368 973, 82 478, 437, appeals. shall consider first, fundamental whether activities laws. thereafter 44, arguments C, finally Government's request broadening I. 16 This case recurring arrangements violate Act.3 '(t)ying serve hardly purpose beyond suppression competition,' Standard Oil Co. California States, 337 293, 305—306, 69 1051, 1058, 93 L.Ed. 1371. They object anti-trust concern reasons—they may force buyers giving up substitutes tied product, see Times-Picayune Pub. 345 594, 605, 73 872, 878, 1277, destroy free access competing suppliers product consuming market, International Salt 332 392, 396, 12, 15, 92 20. tie-in effects seller, virtue position market economic leverage sufficient induce item. standard seller must 'sufficient power respect appreciably restrain *.' Northern Pacific R. 356 1, 6, 78 514, 518, 545. Market dominance—some control exclude competition—is no means test requisite power. Even absent showing dominance, crucial inferred product's desirability consumers uniqueness attributes.4 17 presumed patented copyrighted, 20; Paramount Pictures, 334 131, 915, 1260. principle grew out long line patent eventuated doctrine patentee who utilized would relief infringements patent. Motion Picture Patents Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 502, 37 416, 61 871; Carbice Corp. American Dev. 283 27, 51 334, 75 819; Leitch Barber 302 458, 288, 371; Ethyl Gasoline 309 436, 60 618, 84 852; Morton G. S. Suppiger 314 488, 62 402, 363; Mercoid Mid-Continent Investment 320 661, 64 268, 88 376. reflect hostility use statutorily granted monopoly extend patentee's unpatented products. protected invention, rights exact tribute articles. 18 objectives laws reward uniqueness, carried theory existence valid without more, establishes distinctiveness conclude arrangement anticompetitive consequences. E.g., 156—159, 928—930, 1260, been movie theaters. 19 copyright like statutes, makes secondary consideration. Fox Doyal, 286 123, 127, 546, 547, 76 1010, Chief Hughes spoke follows respecting Congress. interest primary conferring lie general benefits derived public labors authors.' said author artist serves release products creative genius. But does related quality copyright. Where high greatly desired taken, latter borrows former strengthens drawing other. practice tends equalize rather differentiate copyrights. where included equal quality, requirement taken increases some. Each stands own footing whole part another have. As said, result add clauses.' U.S., 158, S.Ct., 929. 20 Appellants distinguish relation facts: exhibitors new medium television. Not challenging Court's engage contend attributable though relevant movie-theater context, lost being use. Feature point out, constitute less 8% programming, assert 'reasonably interchangeable' types programming material well. Thus argue judged cases, materials principles govern nonpatented products, e.g., 11, 521, say proof establish power' sense contemplated products.5 21 cannot escape applicability Pictures. lose legal because shown screen. 22 'was itself unique product'; 'varied theme, artistic performance, stars, audience appeal, etc.,' fungible; reason 'monopolistic' impose appreciable restraint present, demanded decision. 381.6 agree. judge, supported record, confirm presumption resulting itself. 23 Moreover, can adverse appellants' Television forced who, turn, foreclosed stations. Nor substantiality commerce involved. ranging $60,800 Gems $2,500,000 Artists. substantial portion fees represented cost required accept. anti-competitive consequences apt illustration reasons underlying recognition mere presence taking form well insufficient legal, indeed economic, 307, 1059, 1371; 611 n. 30, 881, 882, 1277. By token, inconsistent competition, suppressed arrangements. clear 'inherent nature' 'effect' injuriously restrained trade. Tobacco 221 106, 179, 31 632, 648, 55 663. Accommodation dispensed contents statutory demands extension strictly confined. There rare we enunciated prohibiting inapplicable. However, find difficult conceive case, clearly one. our Pictures application here. Applicability brings meeting Pacific, particularized reaffirmed Pacific. Enforced vice industries, sin serious (in dollar amount) expiate guilt either. Appellants' covered flat holding 159, 930, 'a copyrights accepted' 'illegal.' (other C) make argument small improper enter injunctive relief. urge sales allow selective purchasing light this, few entering disagree. Illegality properly found, now complain incidence too scattered warrant trial exercising judgment, necessary further violations. think wholly warranted. record shows instituted making available shortly suit brought, conscientious publicizing willingness commencement imminent. disturb judge's merely when, here, effects. II. 27 Appellant amount attempted business justification policy. telecasting some 742 known 'RKO Library.' so bank loan price, needed guarantor, Latex Latex, however, secured obtaining return commitment show minimum spot advertisements conjunction Thus, feasibly telecast spots large spread over, requiring effectively those contends by-product legitimate motives—Latex' desire saturation advertising campaign, wish buy library. obvious answer contention thrust avoided claiming otherwise conduct compelled contractual obligations. Were otherwise, nullified. Contractual obligations thus supersede imperatives. Hence, arrangements, once exist context power, 'without elaborate excuse use,' 28 therefore, agree correctly illegal. do permit compounding conferred monopoly. III. 29 ability formulate tailored existent normally superior reviewing court, due familiarity exhibits. Notwithstanding belief responsibility rest workable results obtain, duty examine affords adequate recurrence given litigation. Gypsum 340 76, 89, 71 160, 169, 95 89. 30 afforded judgments7 also: (1) require individually offer picture-by-picture basis; (2) prohibit noncost-justified differentials package; (3) proscribe 'temporary' refusals distributor while negotiating sale. Some practices modifications acts entirely proper viewed alone. ensure, effectual, permissible connected sometimes enjoined. 461, 627, Bausch Lomb Optical 321 707, 724, 805, 814, 1024; Hartford-Empire 323 386, 409, 65 385, 89 322; 401, 17, 18, 88—89, 169—170, When lawsuit, entitled win cause well, supra, 18. A. Initial Offer Individual Films, Individually Priced. Under initially, stating prices. If, delayed producing request, subject himself possible contempt sanction. 'first bite' possibility, forcing outset (but, view it, precluding simultaneous offer, 930). 34 addition decrees, appearing record. better 'couldn't sort firm kind answer,' according official. stated received equivocation, wouldn't worth discuss matter, implication happen.' intracompany memorandum Baton Rouge station's 'I him I happy talk figuring start old round robin worked Houston Antonio.' Without proposed amendment decree, might surreptitiously allowing directing salesmen reluctant produce list request. subtler pressure, accompanied observable delay time, trying basis. Requiring production approach will obviate danger. 35 B. Prohibition Noncost-justified Price Differentials. 36 'has provision vague lead unnecessary Differentials unjustified savings already prohibited appears. Nevertheless, uncertainty operation ensure litigation decrees left until proceeding second modification should added. distribution costs saving legitimately discount. limit justifications. definitional arguments, bases quantity discount used, worded terms 'Temporary' Refusals Deal. third is, designed subjecting prospective purchasers 'run-around' doubt temporary broken lots customer practice, vacuo, permitted tend pre-set forestall competitor's getting group. blanket prohibition deal. main, fails give 'We suggest blocks groups, requirement, express implied, film. accepted.' 930. 40 grant modify limited degree briefly defer pending expeditious bona fide conducted proposal simultaneously either 41 specified bring greater precision decrees. protect guarding seeking good faith comply. vacated causes remanded proceedings conformity opinion. Vacated remanded. 44 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, concurring dissenting part. 45 join Parts II respectively. Part III, dissent. My disagreement goes much granted, deemed appropriate comparatively trivial remedial glosses 46 distorts relationship lower federal courts, whose assessment situation bound informed ours, us exercise revisory relief, instances things manifestly gone awry. meticulous handling abundantly shows. my undisturbed. 'every contract, trust conspiracy, trade nations, declared 209 (1890), 1. has, brief oposition discussed below. See 1260; 1277; consumer dominance necessitate demonstration seldom embark full-scale factual corollary problem seller's percentage share market. even obviously true appears detail sufficiency presumed. reliance E. du Pont de Nemours 351 377, 994, 1264, misplaced. framing misconceives applicable standard. noted, p. 45, 102, term inclusive 'market dominance.' court's example, wants 'Gone With Wind' 'Getting Gertie's Garter' undue advantage viewers Wind.' operative injunctions 101, supra.

Category: 7