Read: Eastman Kodak Co v Image Technical Services Inc 504 US 451 (1992)
Please enter a brief discussion addressing one or more of these points.
1) who defined the market correctly in your view, the majority or the dissent? Should competition law bother with aftermarkets?
2) How would the EC Commission have defined the market applying the 1997 Notice? The OFT with its market definition procedures?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Scalia's argument in dissent is rather compelling: the tying would have been legal had it been made between the first market and the two aftermarkets (spare parts and services) since Kodak did not have any market power on the tying market (the first market)). Therefore, if the exact same result could have been achieved by Kodak with the benediction of the Jefferson Parish test, finding the tying of the two aftermarkets in violation of the Sherman Act reveals a rather formalistic view of antitrust.
i strongly recommend reading borks' epilogue to the 1993 edition of his antitrust paradox classic as it contains a very funny assessment of kodak
Gostei muito desse post e seu blog é muito interessante, vou passar por aqui sempre =) Depois dá uma passada lá no meu site, que é sobre o CresceNet, espero que goste. O endereço dele é http://www.provedorcrescenet.com . Um abraço.
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Projetores, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://projetor-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.
Post a Comment