Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its...
-
Upload
marvin-wells -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
2
Transcript of Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its...
![Page 1: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
• Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in order to get Replacement Parts
• Majority Finds Sufficient Evidence to go to Jury re:– Parts and Service Market as Separate– Sufficient Power in Parts Market– Harm to Consumers
![Page 2: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
• Kodak/DOJ/Scalia: tying & monopolization claims involving aftermarkets should be barred as a matter of law if D has no power in original equipment market
• Kodak: If consumers harmed, they’d switch to competitors’ equipment
• Majority Rejects Claim:– Theory Imperfect
– Evidence Doesn’t Support
![Page 3: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
Ps’ Explanations of Why Theory Doesn’t Work:
1.Buyers have high info costsa.Hard to figure LT costs of durable gds/services.
b.Many purchases are govtsa.don't do good job
b.different departments do capital costs & operating costs.
2.High costs to switch
3.Evidence of Price Discrimination
![Page 4: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
Ps’ Explanations of Why Theory Doesn’t Work:
1. Buyers have high info costs
2. High costs to switcha. High sunk costs (training & price if already paid
for machine)
b. Unlikely to invest in new machine just b/c service expensive
3. Evidence of Price Discrimination
![Page 5: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
Ps’ Explanations of Why Theory Doesn’t Work:
1. Buyers have high info costs
2. High costs to switch
3. Evidence of Price Discrimination– Favoring high volume users; supports P's theory– Suggests treating more favorably those customers
most likely to have had good info or incentive to switch machines
![Page 6: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
DOJ version of theory:
K’s tie is part of marketing strategy: spread costs over time
• Hide true price of machines
• Low sale price for equipment
• Make up with high service prices
![Page 7: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
DOJ version of theory:
K’s tie is marketing strategy: spread costs over time• Hide true price of machines• Low sale price for equipment• Make up with high service prices
Majority: Again record doesn't support• K says its equipment prices were normal, not low• If theory true, K shouldn’t allow purchasers to self-
service.
![Page 8: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
SCALIA version of theory:
• Ties of either parts or service to original equipment OK if no power in equipment market. (undisputed).
![Page 9: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
SCALIA version of theory:
• Ties of either parts or service to original equipment OK if no power in equipment market. Should be same here b/c:
1. Rational consumers should take policy into account when purchasing equipment
2. Shouldn’t base rule on irrational consumers
3. Nut-N-Bolt analysis applies to Parts-N-Service
![Page 10: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
SCALIA version of theory:
1. Rational consumers should take policy into account when purchasing equipment
– BUT policy changed; no evidence that customers aware of in advance
– Leads to lower ct cases: different result if made explicit to consumers at sale
![Page 11: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
SCALIA version of theory:
2. Shouldn’t base rule on irrational consumers. Sounds appealing BUT:
• Not merely about stupid consumers; thought process hard and expensive (e.g., cars)
– changes in models, service, etc.– hard to get info
![Page 12: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
SCALIA version of theory:
2. Shouldn’t base rule on irrational consumers. Sounds appealing BUT:
• Not merely about stupid consumers; thought process hard and expensive (e.g., cars)
• Not clear monopolist should be allowed to take advantage
– If consumers irrational or have bad info, shd co. get monopoly profits?
– If gov’t bad consumer, shd taxpayers have to pay?
![Page 13: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
SCALIA version of theory:
3. Nut-N-Bolt analysis applies to Parts-N-Service
• Scalia assumes services/parts purchased in fixed proportions, so no addt’l harm to consumer from spreading parts monopoly into service.
![Page 14: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
SCALIA version of theory:
3. Nut-N-Bolt analysis applies to Parts-N-Service
• Scalia assumes services/parts purchased in fixed proportions, so no addt’l harm to consumer from spreading parts monopoly into service. BUT
– No evidence of this at all – Counterintuitive; service varies; may not require parts
![Page 15: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
SCALIA version of theory:
Note that Scalia’s analysis focuses entirely on theory; no discussion of evidence or of what Kodak actually was doing.
![Page 16: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
Significance of Case: • Evidence > Theory
– Like Brown & Williamson: won’t preclude cause of action based on theory alone; look at evidence
– Note good lawyering by Ps:• Demonstrated evidence was inconsistent w D’s theory
• Theoretical explanation for why D’s theory didn’t work
• Further evidence supporting that explanation
![Page 17: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
Significance of Case: • Evidence > Theory
• 6-3 Majority (including Rehnquist) reject broad read of Matsushita.
– Key Language in middle paragraph of p.402
![Page 18: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services: p.402
The Court’s requirement in Matsushita that the plaintiffs’ claims make economic sense did not introduce a special burden on plaintiffs facing summary judgment in antitrust cases. The Court did not hold that if the moving party enunciates any economic theory supporting its behavior, regardless of its accuracy in reflecting the actual market, it is entitled to summary judgment. Matsushita demands only that the nonmoving party’s inferences be reasonable in order to reach the jury, a requirement that was not invented, but merely articulated, in that decision. If the plaintiff’s theory is economically senseless, no reasonable jury could find in its favor, and summary judgment should be granted.
![Page 19: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
Significance of Case: • Evidence > Theory• 6-3 Majority (including Rehnquist) reject broad
read of Matsushita. – No reason for stronger test here than in Matsushita
• Didn’t want to overdeter alleged behavior in Matsushita (price-cutting)
• Here, OK to deter high prices & market foreclosure
–
![Page 20: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
Significance of Case: • Evidence > Theory• 6-3 Majority (including Rehnquist) reject broad read
of Matsushita. – No reason for stronger test here than in Matsushita
– Mid-para p.406 2d sentence: It is clearly reasonable to infer that Kodak has market power to raise prices and drive out competition in the aftermarkets, since respondents offer direct evidence that Kodak did so.
![Page 21: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services
Qs on Kodak?
![Page 22: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw
Unsurprisingly, after Kodak, lot of cases re aftermarkets, including:
1. Kodak on Remand
2. Franchising Cases
3. Aftermarket Policies Announced in Advance
4. University Housing/Food Service Cases
![Page 23: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw
1. Kodak on Remand: Info in Outline p. 416
2. Franchising Cases
3. Aftermarket Policies Announced in Advance
4. University Housing/Food Service Cases
![Page 24: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw
1. Kodak on Remand:
2. Franchising Cases (p.416)
3. Aftermarket Policies Announced in Advance
4. University Housing/Food Service Cases
![Page 25: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw: Franchising Cases (p.416)
• Nature of claims: – To operate franchise (tying product), franchisee
must use specific product brands (tied products)
– Franchisees claim that their investment in the franchise gives the franchisor market power
![Page 26: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw: Franchising Cases (p.416)
Cases split as to availability of tying cause of action:• Some courts:
– Kodak n/a once franchise agreement signed.
– E.g., Queen City (3d Cir. 1997) (Franchisees purchase products because bound by contract, not because forced by market power) [ME: Too simple; contract could = forcing]
• Some courts: – Switching costs for franchisees higher than those in Kodak
– Franchisor can force franchisee to buy fungible goods from it at market or above-market prices
![Page 27: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw: Franchising Cases
Franchise Cases Arguably Different From Kodak:• Franchisees are dealers of package of products & services
– To get franchise, agree to sell package chosen by franchisor– Franchisor needs franchisees; has interest in their profitability. – “Tie” is more like a non-price restraint on how franchise
products sold (generally OK under Sylvania)
• Franchisee is not ultimate consumer– No info/switching costs for consumer– Consumers can discipline franchisor if they don't like package
or if prices too high
• Should disputes between franchisees & franchisors be treble damage AT suits? Cf. Photovest (p.352)
![Page 28: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw
1. Kodak on Remand
2. Franchising Cases
3. Aftermarket Policies Announced in Advance (p.416)
4. University Housing/Food Service Cases
![Page 29: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw: Prior Knowledge
• Several cases distinguish Kodak where purchasers knew of tie involving aftermarkets prior to purchasing equipment
• These cases say that you can’t succeed on Kodak claim w/o market power in equipment market unless the tie is a change in policy or is hidden
![Page 30: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw
1. Kodak on Remand
2. Franchising Cases
3. Aftermarket Policies Announced in Advance
4. University Housing/Food Service Cases (not in outline)
![Page 31: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw: University “Aftermarkets”
Hamilton: 128 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 1997)• §2 claim by fraternities against D college
re both housing & meal plans• Court allows to proceed over motion to
dismiss– Sufficient claim that interstate commerce
is involved (even though D is college)– Sufficient allegations of monopoly &
potential harm from monopoly
![Page 32: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw: University “Aftermarkets”
Hack, 237 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000)
Challenge to Yale U. requirement that underclassmen live in co-ed housing.
1. 1st Amdt.: Interference w Free Exercise of Religion (held not state actor)
2. Fair Housing Act: Discrimination on Basis of Religion (insufficient allegations)
3. Sherman Act: Tying (insufficient power)
![Page 33: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw: University “Aftermarkets”
Hack, 237 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000)Tying challenge to Yale U. housing requirement fails:
1. Yale doesn’t have market power in higher education market– Market isn’t local– Lots of superb institutions of higher learning
(citing US News)
![Page 34: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw: University “Aftermarkets”
Hack, 237 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000)Tying challenge to Yale U. housing requirement fails:
1. Yale doesn’t have market power in higher ed. market
2. Can’t claim economic power on basis that you’re locked into Yale once you’ve accepted– For tying purposes, can’t claim economic power arises from
contractual arrangement affecting distinct class of consumers (citing Queen City: franchising case)
– Distinguishes Hamilton b/c there college “abruptly” changed rules after students attending
![Page 35: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Post-Kodak Tying Caselaw: University “Aftermarkets”
Hack/Hamilton fact pattern could give rise to several different issues
• Kodak issues (market power; 1 product or 2)
• Is university education subject to AT laws?
• State action issues if public university – Policy clearly articulated in grant of authority? – When is public univ. like municipality (as
opposed to actual arm of state)
![Page 36: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
LOGISTICS & ANNOUNCEMENTS
• Project – Questions?– I’ll take questions Thursday; not after
• Exam Workshop Online + Live Shows– Today: 1:00-1:45 Room 209– Thursday: 12:30- 1:45 Room 109
• Missing Write-Ups & End-of-Chapter Info
![Page 37: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Microsoft: Section Two in
the New Millennium
![Page 38: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Difficulty Inherent in §2 Conduct Cases
• Monopoly Power inherently harmful b/c output low & prices high– Don’t want to allow monopoly to perpetuate itself
– Don’t want to allow monopoly to get extra advantages in other markets
![Page 39: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Difficulty Inherent in §2 Conduct Cases
• Monopoly Power inherently harmful• BUT don’t want threat of enforcement to exacerbate
harm to market– Want monopoly to compete aggressively
– Want monopoly to innovate
– Want to take advantage of scale economies & other efficiencies
– Enforcement is expensive
![Page 40: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Difficulty Inherent in §2 Conduct Cases
• Monopoly Power inherently harmful• Don’t want threat of enforcement to exacerbate harm• How draw legal standards to strike balance?
– Is biggest danger under-enforcement or over-deterrence?
– i.e., When in doubt, should you presume harmful or OK?
– Obviously hard to draw lines precisely
– Also want to give adequate notice to firms w market power
![Page 41: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Difficulty Inherent in §2 Conduct Cases
• Monopoly Power inherently harmful
• Don’t want threat of enforcement to exacerbate harm
• How draw legal standards to strike balance?
• Subset of more general issue: What to do with arrangements that plausibly have both pro- and anti-competitive effects?– Exclusion from Joint Ventures
– Mergers
– Vertical Price-Fixing
![Page 42: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Overview of Microsoft
Microsoft Windows® &
The Backstreet Boys
![Page 43: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Overview of Microsoft
• Common Claim by Opponents of Lawsuit: “Punishing MS for Success”
![Page 44: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Overview of Microsoft
• Claim by Opponents : “Punishing MS for Success”
• Common Industry View– Not successful b/c of strengths of products– History of Windows® : made difficulties for software
competitors• Re compatibility
• Re unnecessary size of Windows
![Page 45: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Overview of Microsoft
• Claim by Opponents : “Punishing MS for Success”
• Common Industry View– Not successful b/c of strengths of products– History re Windows : made difficulties for software
competitors
• Lots of evidence of specific bad conduct often ignored in commentary
![Page 46: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Overview of Microsoft
• Theory of case: MS trying to maintain monopoly by discouraging development of platforms in competition with Windows®
• Unusual b/c not really trying to leverage Windows monopoly into market power/profits elsewhere
![Page 47: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Overview of Microsoft
• Theory of case: MS trying to maintain monopoly by discouraging development of competing platforms
• E.g., §2 Claim: Attempt to monopolize browser market– Lots of evidence of use of monopoly power to try to eliminate
Netscape
– But not targeted at making monopoly profits in browser market
– Attempt to eliminate alternate platforms from which competitors could attack Windows
![Page 48: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Overview of Microsoft
• Conduct: Lots of evidence of attempts to prevent growth of systems that would compete with Windows
• Enough to be pretty clearly violation under existing cases: “maintenance” of Windows monopoly– Lot of very bad behavior ,
• Threats to IBM & Intel
• Lying about compatibility w Java
– Some more questionable: • Aspects of integrating Explorer into Windows
• Exclusionary Ks
![Page 49: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Overview of Microsoft
• Monopoly Power: Pretty Clear– 95% share – Entry barriers from network effects– Behavior suggests market power (threats to
IBM/Intel)
![Page 50: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Overview of Microsoft
Important Questions Raised• Relevance of High-Tech Markets & Network
Effects
• Burdens of Proof in §2 Conduct Cases
• Application of Tying Doctrine to Software Integration
• Difficulty of Remedy
![Page 51: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Microsoft: Network Effects in Rapidly Changing High-Tech
Markets• Two special contextual problems raised by
Microsoft noted in “Overview” in case
1. Rapidly Changing High-Tech Markets
2. Network Effects
![Page 52: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Microsoft: Network Effects in Rapidly Changing High-Tech
Markets1.Rapidly Changing High-Tech Markets
• Market conditions regularly change with technical improvements
• How should we address Antitrust violations? – Focus on Deterrence
• Act quickly & firmly• Punish so others don’t take advantage
– Laissez-Faire? • Assume market will cure harms in medium run• Assume costs of intervention & enforcement > harms
![Page 53: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Microsoft: Network Effects in Rapidly Changing High-Tech
Markets1.Rapidly Changing High-Tech Markets
• Market conditions regularly change with technical improvements
• How should we address Antitrust violations?
• Court notes great difficulties re remedy– Conduct remedies may be rendered obsolete very
quickly– Difficult to arrive at appropriate structural
remedies
![Page 54: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Microsoft: Network Effects in Rapidly Changing High-Tech
Markets2. Network Effects
• P. 419: “ In markets characterized by network effects, one product or standard tends towards dominance, because ‘the utility that a user derives from consumption of the good increases with the number of other agents consuming the good.’ Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility.”
![Page 55: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Microsoft: Network Effects in Rapidly Changing High-Tech
Markets2. Network Effects
• Utility … increases with the number of other agents consuming the good
• E.g., VHS, Windows, telephone networks, YouTube/MySpace
![Page 56: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Microsoft: Network Effects in Rapidly Changing High-Tech
Markets2. Network Effects
• Utility … increases with the number of other agents consuming the good
• Competition may be sequential not simultaneous
![Page 57: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Microsoft: Network Effects in Rapidly Changing High-Tech
Markets2. Network Effects
• Utility … increases with the number of other agents consuming the good
• Competition may be sequential not simultaneous
• Court: no consensus about how to address– Let market operate v. – Worry about acts to extend/maintain ST monop
![Page 58: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Microsoft: Network Effects in Rapidly Changing High-Tech
MarketsLegal Effects of Two Taken Together?
• Court notes might push in opposite directions
• MS argued should affect Q of monopoly power
• MS did not argue conduct (might be stronger)
• Also argument going to remedy
![Page 59: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Kodak Changes Policy to Require Most Users of its Micrographic Equipment to Purchase Service from Kodak in.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062421/56649e545503460f94b4ad3b/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Microsoft: Burdens of Proof in §2 Conduct Cases
• MS was allowed to offer justification for conduct
• Aspen & IBM suggest OK if legitimate business reason (LBR), at least …
– For refusal to deal w rival – For physical integration of system
• Who bears burden of proof on LBR? – cf. per se v. Rule of Reason