3 ms·
The key point in the Kodak case was that Kodak changed their policy on selling repair parts after people bought the original product, and the change in policy i
by nodamage 6y ago
The key point in the Kodak case was that Kodak changed their policy on selling repair parts after people bought the original product, and the change in policy is what led the Supreme Court to decide that the market for repair parts was a separate and relevant aftermarket, because the people that bought Kodak copiers lacked information at the time of purchase about Kodak's repair policy and therefore were locked-in to buying repair services from Kodak after the fact.
Subsequent cases since Kodak have continually narrowed the scope in which Kodak is applied, and it likely would not apply here because people who buy iPhones have known since the App Store launched in 2008 that the App Store is the only place they'll be able to install apps from.
- zerocrates 6y agoYes, the specifics of the case don't match up perfectly, but the context of the question was "show me a case where a single company had antitrust liability without a majority of the market," not "prove with a single citation that Apple will lose."
- nodamage 6y agoFair enough, my comment was intended for people who were unfamiliar with the case and might misinterpret it to apply here.