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 bef

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 after 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 rev

Balliol College - one of the university's oldest constituent colleges. The University of Oxford has no known foundation da

7.2 Mathematics and sciences
7.3 Literature, music, and drama
7.4 Religion
7.5 Economics and philosophy
7.6 Sport
8 Oxford in literature and other media
9 See also
10 References
10.1 Notes
10.2 Bibliography
11 External links
History[edit]

Founding[edit]


Balliol College - one of the university's oldest constituent colleges.
The University of Oxford has no known foundation date. Teaching at Oxford existed in some form in 1096, but it is unclear at what point a university came into being.[1]
The expulsion of foreigners from the University of Paris in 1167 caused many English scholars to return from France and settle in Oxford. The historian Gerald of Wales lectured to such scholars in 1188, and the first known foreign scholar, Emo of Friesland, arrived in 1190. The head of the University was named a chancellor from at least 1201, and the masters were recognised as a universitas or corporation in 1231.


In 1605 Oxford was still a walled city, but several colleges had been built outside the city walls. (North is at the bottom on this map.)
The students associated together on the basis of geographical origins, into two "nations", representing the North (including the Scots) and the South (including the Irish and the Welsh). In later centuries, geographical origins continued to influence many students' affiliations when membership of a college or hall became customary in Oxford. In addition to this, members of many religious orders, including Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites, and Augustinians, settled in Oxford in the mid-13th century, gained influence, and maintained houses for students. At about the same time, private benefactors established colleges to serve as self-contained scholarly communities. Among the earliest such founders were William of Durham, who in 1249 endowed University College, and John Balliol, father of a future King of Scots; Balliol College bears his name. Another founder, Walter de Merton, a chancellor of England and afterwards Bishop of Rochester, devised a series of regulations for college life;