Exclusive Dealing & Tying Flashcards
Tampa Electric v. Nashville Coal
Exclusive-dealing arrangement not unlawful unless it substantially excludes competition.
- define product/geographic market
- must be found to constitute a substantial share of the relevant market.
a. Foreclosure
Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.
Tying patented products to un-patented products –> LAWFUL
Patentee has right to not license product at all, if it does do so, it can put whatever conditions it wants on the license.
International Salt Company v. U.S.
Overrules A.B. Dick
Tying agreements are unlawful under § 1 Sherman.
Tying patented and un-patented is per se unlawful (forecloses competition)
U.S. v. Loew’s Inc
Standard of Illegality (seller has sufficient economic power) –> if met, per se unlawful.
Market Power > Sufficient Economic Power
Siegel v. Chicken Delight
Per se unlawful if 3-prongs met:
- Scheme in question involves 2 distinct items and provide that one may not be obtained unless the other is also purchased
- Tying product possesses sufficient economic power appreciably to restrain competition in the tied product market
- Not insubstantial amount of commerce is affect by the arrangement.
a. Any amount of sales being foreclosed and this prong is met
Jefferson Parish Hospital District v. Hyde
Tying is not per se unlawful if company lacks market power in tying market.
3-prong (not law)
- Seller must have market power in the tying product market
- There must be a substantial threat that the tying seller will acquire market power in the tied market
- Coherent economic basis for treating the products as distinct
a. No patient would buy anesthesia on its own
Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services
A company’s lack of monopoly power in a primary market does not preclude a finding that the company possesses sufficient market power in a subsidiary market to violate antitrust law.
