The District Court granted summary judgment for Kodak, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Respondents then filed this action, alleging, inter alia, that Kodak had unlawfully tied the sale of service for its machines to the sale of parts, in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, and had unlawfully monopolized and attempted to monopolize the sale of service and parts for such machines, in violation of § 2 of that Act. ![]() ![]() Argued December 10, 1991-Decided June 8, 1992Īfter respondent independent service organizations (ISO's) began servicing copying and micrographic equipment manufactured by petitioner Eastman Kodak Co., Kodak adopted policies to limit the availability to ISO's of replacement parts for its equipment and to make it more difficult for ISO's to compete with it in servicing such equipment. IMAGE TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.ĬERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2023
Categories |