|
Deep Blue at the University of Michigan >
Research Collections >
Information, School of (SI) >
|
Please use this persistent URL to cite or link to this item:
|
| Title: | Links Between Vertically Related Markets: ITS v. Kodak |
| Authors: | MacKie-Mason, Jeffrey K.
Metzler, John |
| Issue Date: | 2002 |
| Citation: | in The Antitrust Revolution, 3rd ed., J. Kwoka and L. White, eds., 1999. Revised for Kwoka and White, 4th ed., 2002. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/50450> |
| Abstract: | In 1987 seventeen small companies filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Eastman Kodak Corporation, alleging that Kodak used its monopoly power over repair parts for its high-volume copiers and micrographics equipment in order to monopolize the service markets for those machines. Eleven years later, there have been two District Court opinions, two from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and one from the Supreme Court, and further post-trial, post-appeal disputes continue. Since the initial Supreme Court opinion in Kodak, there have been at least seven closely related Appeals Court opinions, and they stand in sharply divided conflict. Kodak is one of the most significant antitrust cases of the last decade or two. It is also one of the most controversial, and the controversy is far from resolved. We review the facts and the procedural history. We then present the main economic issues in dispute, and summarize the evidence presented at trial. We close with brief observations on some unresolved question that affect future antitrust economic analysis, and describe the post-Kodak conflict among other Circuit Courts of Appeal. |
| Appears in Collections: | Information, School of (SI)
Economics, Department of
Public Policy, Gerald R. Ford School of
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| kodak_2002.pdf | | 215Kb | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
|
Deep Blue encourages the fair use of copyrighted material, and you are free to link to content here without asking for permission. Consult the document(s) and/or contact the copyright holder for additional rights questions and requests.
|
