Tobacco Documents Online

. A - 22 b- l3' °` According to the television stations' review petition, the consent judgment requires' ASCAP "to issue a license to 'any user making written applicat~on therefor,' and to quote a reasonable fee 'for the license requested. "' The stations regarded the consent judgment as creating a compulsory-licensing provision.. Therefore, the television stations contended,'tOlK r- hM ASCAP could not properly refuse to quote them a fee for a' license they requested. And"~i t agreement by the television stations to take a license covering filmed and taped program}tii stations' petition continued, ASCAP had no right to condition the quotation of a fee upon anl ai~cr charging that ASCAP's licensing methods violated the restraint-of-trade provisions i The Justice Department originally obtained its consent decree against ASCAP ini19 rial furnished by independent producers. , The Federal District Court for Southern New York (Manhattan) 'concluded that the music. ~iij license under which the fee is based only on revenues from proL.rams that,actually,use;AS from the entire group of programs covered by the license. The other is a"per program licenses. One type is a "blanket" license under which a station pays a fee based on the rev "'u for television programs. In compliance with the consent decree, ASCAP granted two types in Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The judgment was amended in 1950 to set llcensing standar merits. No. 132, 1/21 /64); and the case was sent back to the Second Circuit for the ruling on the reversed by the Supreme Court (pp. A-8, X-3, ATRR No. 119, 10/22/63, p. A-16, -ATRR without jurisdiction of the appeal (p. A-17, ATRR No. 96, 5/14/63). That determinationii, tions then went to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which likewise held thatPit: "dismissed for want of jurisdiction" (p. A- 16, ATRR No. 79, :1/15/63). The televisionrsta but the appeal w consent decree. The decision was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, of relief sought by the television stations could be obtained only through an amendment of thi ' Washington office in March. ~ approved by the Commission. A public hearing on the rules was held at the FTC's : i;iL; regarding the requirements of the laws administered by the Federal Trade Commission'ar '- Trade practice rules to provide guidance to members of the braided-rug industry PR-ACTICE FUTLES FOR BRAIDED-RUG INDUSTRY ADMINISTRATI.ON. FTC PROMULGATES TRADE •co4 - 0 - Copies of the rules are available at the Commission's Washington offices. of who are subject to it:s jurisdiction and engage In practices prohibited by the rules: a-~l its notice, the Commission says that it will take appropriate action against industry me wide basis, trade practices which are violative of laws administered by the Commission: ATRR No. 104, 7/9/63), "are designed to eliminate and prevent, on a voluntary and Indu Trade practice rules, according to the Commission's Rules of Practice (p. X-5 • rl ture, and deceptive price representations. of industry pr.oducts; misrepresentation as to character of business and method,of;man rugs. The rules relate to deception In general, disclosure of foreign origin and finished,q ~ tribution of hand or machine-braided rugs, tubular braided rugs, and tubular wrap-a-ro comprises persons and organizations engaged in the manufacture, processing, sale, or diq Commission explains that the industry for which the trade practice rules are established;j By notice published in the June 23 issue of the Federal Register (29 F. R. 7926) 0 , RESTRAINTS AND MONOPOLIES: TOBACCO CODE GETS TENTATIVE IM UITIZATION FROM URIMMINAL ANTITRUST PROSECUTION establish a cigarette; advertising code to regulate the labeling and advertising of cigare the Justice Department says It will bring no criminal antitrust action "as a result"of adh In response to a request from cigarette manufacturers that they be permitted to to the code. " ATPR h]rn 1S~ 2022975660

-23 04 A - 23 In a June 19 letter to a Washington law firm representing the industry, Antitrust Division Chief Wiliiami H. Orrick, Jr., notes that the Federal Trade Commission is presently considering standards to regulate cigarette labeling and advertising and that the House Interstate Commerce Committee will soon hold hearings on a number of bills that would establish standards for such advertising, "Under these circumstances, " Mr. Orrick writes, "it would be inappropriate for us to give any sanction to the permanent establishment of a private organization setting industry standards until' the views of Congress and the Federal Trade Commission have been made known. In the meantime, however, we assure you that no criminal antitrust prosecution will be brought by us as a result of adherence to the code." The code, which was submitted for Justice Department approval earlier this year (p. A-14, ATRR No. 147, 5/5/64), calls for advance clearance of all cigarette advertising by ' ut administrator appointed to enforce the code. It is scheduled to go into effect as,soon',as it is" Cleared by the justice Department. Under the terms of the code, the manufacturers would agree not to advertise on certain programs, in certain types of periodicals, or to promote their products on college or school campuses. They would also agree not to solicit the trade of persons under 21 years old through,, t6e distribution of free cigarette samples. Former New Jersey Governor Robert B. Meyner 4s been selected by the industry as administrator of the code (p. A-6, ATRR No. 153, 6/16/64). The letter appears in full in the TEXT Section, p. X-23. -0- TRAINTS AND MONOPOLIESe EXAMINER DECIDES THAT ~: TC JURISDICTiON' COVERS NONPROFIT BLOOD BANK Jurisdiction a Senate bill (S. 2560) would take away from the Federal Trade Commission lupheld and exercised by one of the Commission's examiners. He holds that the Commission 1N Jurisdiction over the interstate distribution of human blood by an incorporated nonprofit bank. Examiner Walter K, Bennett orders a midwestern blood bank, a hospital association, members, and 14 hospital pathologists to stop restraining the exchange, sale, and dis- 64) tion of human blood. (Community Blood Bank of the Kansas City Area, Inc., Docket 8519, In support of its contention that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over it, the blood pointed out (1) that it is a not-for-profit corporation, and the Commission does not have The corporations asserted that the transfusing of blood from one person to another is Im ,m , rConspiracy in restraint of trade could do so with impunity." simple expedient of organizing a nonprofit corporate shell persons desiring to engage W sc sense of those terms. " The Commission could not accomplish its primary mission if 7,, N organized to engage in business and secure profit for themselves or their members in the N I service and cannot be broken into parts, some of which are "commerce." As this ner Bennett says, not-for-profit corporations are subject to the jurisdiction of the FTC. ration is considered in its broadest sense, consistent with the purposes of the FTC Act, zed' to carry out business for its own profit or that of its members." When the term ed to include any company * * * or association, incorporated or unincorporated, which is tton of "corporations" subject to FTC orders. Section 4 states: "Corporation shall be : r rity over such corporations and (2) that blood is not an article of commerce and therefore not fall under the Commission's jurisdiction. Examiner Bennett considers the FTC Act's In this case, the examiner finds that the corporations were "engaged in a combination.N~ toespiracy with others and are thus in a partnership expressly subject to the Act and *** ~ odity that may be bought and so1d. It consists of living human tissue and can only be ates the practice of medicine, there can be no restraint of trade. A professional service a trade. In support of these contentions, the corporations argued that human blood is not ta part of the practice of medicine. ATRR No. 154