Despite the Supreme Court's 'Kodak' ruling, manufacturers continue to fend off ISO's claims of Sherman Act violations in aftermarkets for parts and service
Article Abstract:
Independent service organizations or third party maintainers have had little luck persuading courts of manufacturers' antitrust violations despite the apparent precedent of the Supreme Court ruling in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Inc. Most such claims allege the manufacturer ties the availability of parts to a purchase of its service, or that it acts as a monopoly, or that it uses predatory pricing. Six cases are considered, including Picker International v Leavitt, Data General v Grumman Systems Support, and Servicetrends v Siemens Medical Systems.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Victims may 'collude' to contest dumping; the Noerr-Pennington doctrine can protect firms that join to threaten antidumping action
Article Abstract:
Companies should hold any meetings with competitors regarding an antidumping case before attorneys who can make note of and later testify to the fact that any discussions never reached the point of antidumping or price fixing. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine did succeed in U.S. v. Appleton Papers, Inc., but no corporation ever wants to have to defend itself against charges of participating in an international price-fixing conspiracy. The defendants in Appleton were able to fight back criminal antitrust charges by using the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
In patent cases, antitrust counterclaims misfire
Article Abstract:
Antitrust counterclaims brought by defendants in patent infringement suits rarely work and typically double the expense of litigation. Most mis-use defenses, as the counterclaim is also known, assert either that the patentee is knowingly enforcing an invalid patent, or that the patent was procured by fraud on the Patent Office. Most such counterclaims today are brought as Sherman Act Section 1 violations. Typically, though, courts dismiss such defenses, and none have prevailed in the past 20 years.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Juggling free speech, decency; Supreme Court to consider restrictions on artists seeking NEA grant monies. Juggling act; providing health care benefits may create unexpected liability
- Abstracts: Using the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act - a primer for life insurance companies and professionals. Overview of the Life Insurance Illustrations Model Regulation
- Abstracts: The Supreme Court and international law: the demise of Restatement section 403. The President's constitutional authority to use limited military force
- Abstracts: Toward a more diverse judiciary: the ABA needs to look at its process of evaluating nominees for the bench. Under the congressional microscope: Judicial Conference responds to senator's request to curb judiciary's expenses
- Abstracts: No way out: an argument against permitting parties to opt out of U.S. securities laws in international transactions