TL;DRAbstract
It is now over four years since the Supreme Court's decision in Jefferson Parish v. Hyde.1 Many antitrust observers feared that by preserving tying as a per se offense the decision would lead lower courts to continue to find economically nonsensical ties, as many complained was happening at the time of the decision. This fear was heightened when a few months after Jefferson Parish the Ninth Circuit used it to justify the Digidyne Corp. v. Data General Corp.2 decision, which found per se illegal a tie-in of a computer's operating system software and central processing unit even though the defendant had no power in any definable market.
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
It is now over four years since the Supreme Court's decision in Jefferson Parish v. Hyde.1 Many antitrust observers feared that by preserving tying as a per se offense the decision would lead lower courts to continue to find economically nonsensical ties, as many complained was happening at the time of the decision. This fear was heightened when a few months after Jefferson Parish the Ninth Circuit used it to justify the Digidyne Corp. v. Data General Corp.2 decision, which found per se illegal a tie-in of a computer's operating system software and central processing unit even though the defendant had no power in any definable market.
Keywords
Chat
Click to start Chat