The evidence in this case supported the inference that the distributors of the films acted in concert, in making their several agreements with the first run exhibitors, and in imposing the restrictions so stipulated on the subsequent-run exhibitors. Upon the production of such proof, the burden rested upon those implicated to explain away or contradict it. The production of weak evidence when strong is available leads to the conclusion that the strong would have been adverse.
Silence then becomes evidence of the most convincing character.
Acceptance by competitors, knowing that concerted action is contemplated, of an invitation to participate in a plan, the necessary consequence of which, if carried out, is restraint of interstate commerce, is sufficient to establish an unlawful conspiracy under the Sherman Act. A contract between the copyright owner of motion picture films and the owner of motion picture theaters, restraining the competitive distribution of the films in the open market in order to protect the theater owner from competition of other theaters is not protected by the Copyright Act. All graphics and HTML are copyright Anthony D. Becker 1994-2001. Send comments to the webmaster by clicking this link.