United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
GPTKB entity
Properties (45)
Predicate | Object |
---|---|
gptkbp:instanceOf |
court case
|
gptkbp:caseOutcome |
changed distribution practices in film industry
ruled against monopolistic practices Paramount's_practices_were_found_to_restrain_trade Paramount_was_forced_to_divest_its_theater_chains |
gptkbp:caseTypes |
No. 4
antitrust case |
gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Paramount_Pictures
gptkb:United_States_government gptkb:Washington,_D.C. ruled against the major film studios |
gptkbp:decidedBy |
gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court
May 3, 1948 |
gptkbp:historicalContext |
gptkb:post-World_War_II_America
|
gptkbp:historicalEvent |
part of a series of antitrust actions
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
|
gptkbp:impact |
led to the breakup of the studio system
|
gptkbp:influencedBy |
New_Deal_policies
|
gptkbp:involved |
gptkb:United_States
Paramount_Pictures,_Inc. |
gptkbp:judges |
Justice_Jackson's_dissent
majority_opinion_written_by_Justice_Felix_Frankfurter |
gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:United_States_federal_court
|
gptkbp:legal_representation |
examined the effects of vertical integration
|
gptkbp:legalStatus |
gptkb:Department_of_Justice
antitrust law dismantling of block booking practices monopoly in the film industry |
gptkbp:notableEvent |
Sherman Antitrust Act
Film Antitrust Act |
gptkbp:notableFeature |
available in legal archives
often studied in law schools landmark antitrust ruling analyzed for its economic implications influenced future media regulations still cited in antitrust discussions today |
gptkbp:outcome |
shifted_power_dynamics_in_Hollywood
Paramount's_vertical_integration_practices_were_deemed_illegal |
gptkbp:precedent |
future antitrust cases in the film industry
regulation of vertical integration |
gptkbp:relatedPatent |
United_States_v._Columbia_Pictures_Corp.
United_States_v._MGM United_States_v._Warner_Bros._Pictures,_Inc. |
gptkbp:significance |
transformed_Hollywood's_business_practices
|
gptkbp:team |
remains a pivotal case in antitrust law
|