7 ms·

It very much matters if the terms changed, considering that the long shot legal precedent Epic is relying on is Kodak v. Image Technical Services. Terms changin

It very much matters if the terms changed, considering that the long shot legal precedent Epic is relying on is Kodak v. Image Technical Services. Terms changing in that case was a key element of why a single brand could be considered a valid antitrust market.

_qulr 6y ago
Could you explain this in more detail? I read about this case, and my understanding is that the Independent Service Organizations ("ISOs") didn't actually have a direct contractual relationship with Kodak. They were truly independent, and thus there were no terms to change.
- Despegar 6y ago
  Kodak monopolized the aftermarket for parts and service after their customers were "locked in." The primary market for their equipment was competitive and they didn't have monopoly power, but the Supreme Court still decided against them. This established that a single brand could be a "relevant market" for antitrust purposes under certain circumstances. This is the case that Epic is relying on against Apple. Unfortunately for them plaintiffs almost never win under Kodak antitrust theories.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > Kodak monopolized the aftermarket for parts and service after their customers were "locked in." It's not clear to me that the timing was essential. Apparently Kodak had a policy since 1975 to only sell parts to direct purchasers of equipment, but the initial case wasn't filed until 1988. So the official terms, which were between Kodak and customers, not Kodak and ISOs, hadn't changed recently. Clearly Kodak was taking some non-official anticompetitive actions, but that's not the same as changing the official terms.
    - Despegar 6y ago
      Subsequent decisions by circuit courts have used the lack of an explicit policy change to find against the plaintiff. This case is at the outer boundaries of antitrust law and lower courts have effectively taken the perspective of the dissent to limit its applicability.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        > lower courts have effectively taken the perspective of the dissent to limit its applicability The dissent... of the Supreme Court opinion??
- nodamage 6y ago
  The "terms" in this context are not referring to contractual terms between Kodak and the ISOs, they are the conditions under which Kodak customers could obtain service and repair parts for the copiers they originally purchased. In Kodak, customers originally purchased Kodak copiers without any aftermarket restrictions, and then several years later Kodak changed their policy and stopped selling repair parts to the ISOs, which left customers locked into buying repair services from Kodak instead. The key factor in Kodak was that there was change to the conditions under which customers could obtain repair parts that customers could not have reasonably anticipated or planned for when they originally purchased Kodak copiers. The fact that a change in policy occurred is very important to that case, and indeed some subsequent courts have found that absent that change in policy, Kodak does not apply. Epic's lawyer spent the first part of yesterday's hearing attempting to argue that Kodak applied to this case, but judge seemed very skeptical of this line of argument. As Apple's lawyer correctly pointed out, single-brand markets are a unicorn in anti-trust law and this case does not fit the narrow exceptions created by Kodak (and a related case, Newcal).

_qulr 6y ago

Could you explain this in more detail? I read about this case, and my understanding is that the Independent Service Organizations ("ISOs") didn't actually have a direct contractual relationship with Kodak. They were truly independent, and thus there were no terms to change.

Despegar 6y ago
Kodak monopolized the aftermarket for parts and service after their customers were "locked in." The primary market for their equipment was competitive and they didn't have monopoly power, but the Supreme Court still decided against them. This established that a single brand could be a "relevant market" for antitrust purposes under certain circumstances. This is the case that Epic is relying on against Apple. Unfortunately for them plaintiffs almost never win under Kodak antitrust theories.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Kodak monopolized the aftermarket for parts and service after their customers were "locked in." It's not clear to me that the timing was essential. Apparently Kodak had a policy since 1975 to only sell parts to direct purchasers of equipment, but the initial case wasn't filed until 1988. So the official terms, which were between Kodak and customers, not Kodak and ISOs, hadn't changed recently. Clearly Kodak was taking some non-official anticompetitive actions, but that's not the same as changing the official terms.
  - Despegar 6y ago
    Subsequent decisions by circuit courts have used the lack of an explicit policy change to find against the plaintiff. This case is at the outer boundaries of antitrust law and lower courts have effectively taken the perspective of the dissent to limit its applicability.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      > lower courts have effectively taken the perspective of the dissent to limit its applicability The dissent... of the Supreme Court opinion??
nodamage 6y ago
The "terms" in this context are not referring to contractual terms between Kodak and the ISOs, they are the conditions under which Kodak customers could obtain service and repair parts for the copiers they originally purchased. In Kodak, customers originally purchased Kodak copiers without any aftermarket restrictions, and then several years later Kodak changed their policy and stopped selling repair parts to the ISOs, which left customers locked into buying repair services from Kodak instead. The key factor in Kodak was that there was change to the conditions under which customers could obtain repair parts that customers could not have reasonably anticipated or planned for when they originally purchased Kodak copiers. The fact that a change in policy occurred is very important to that case, and indeed some subsequent courts have found that absent that change in policy, Kodak does not apply. Epic's lawyer spent the first part of yesterday's hearing attempting to argue that Kodak applied to this case, but judge seemed very skeptical of this line of argument. As Apple's lawyer correctly pointed out, single-brand markets are a unicorn in anti-trust law and this case does not fit the narrow exceptions created by Kodak (and a related case, Newcal).