For example, in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Picture Technical Features, Inc., 112 S. Ct. 2072 (1992), the Supreme Court held that factual issues regarding consumer “lock-in” in the after-market for replacement parts constituted a proper basis on which to deny motions for summary judgment in a tie-in case. Similarly, a plaintiff’s use of leverage in lock-in situations has frequently been cited in the lower courts as a principal basis for the denial of summary judgment motions in both tie-in and monopolization situations. 105
v. Subaru of brand new England. Inc.. 858 F.2d 792 (very first Cir. 1988). Truth be told there the first Routine (Breyer, C. J.) considering just what it referred to as a very “understated analysis” to have link-in the issues. It research starts to consider the anti-competitive effects of actions that need opposition hit the market into the two account (in the place of just one level) off company. Id. from the 795-96.
You to a case in point of such convinced is actually Grappone, Inc
Reflecting its emphasis on the importance of court review of decrees agreed to by the Justice Department, Congress in 15 U.S.C. . 16(f) has expressly authorized a wide variety of procedures that the Court may use in making its determination regarding the public interest. These procedures include, inter alia, taking the testimony of Government officials or experts, or other expert witnesses (. 16(f)(1)); appointing a special master or court expert (. 16(f)(2)); examining documentary materials (. 16(f)(3)); or “taking such other action in the public interest as the court may deem appropriate” (. 16(f)(5)). Continue reading