Court Opinion

ID: 9447809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:45:12.554164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:12.218177
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
Plaintiff’s petition for rehearing suggests that he has not fully understood our opinion with regard to conscious parallelism. Whatever this term means, it must be something more than mutual awareness of similar conduct. This awareness must be an element entering into each party’s decisional process, and the basis for inferring that it did so must *306be something more substantial than a guess. For everyone to run out of the building when there is a cry of “Fire,” or to stand in a queue at a bus stop, is not conscious parallelism. Plaintiff’s misconception is revealed by his claim that conscious parallelism began the very day he sought to obtain first-run films. He must first show why or when reasonable distributors would have changed— not simply might have changed — before an inference can be drawn. Thereafter plaintiff finds himself with a picture of non-uniform change.
The petition for rehearing is denied.