3 ms·
Kodak monopolized the aftermarket for parts and service after their customers were "locked in." The primary market for their equipment was competitive and they
by 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 agoSubsequent 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??