Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs.
504 U.S. 451 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A company's lack of significant market power in a primary equipment market does not, as a matter of law, preclude a finding of market power in derivative aftermarkets for parts and service under the Sherman Act. The existence of such power is a factual inquiry that must account for market realities, such as information costs and switching costs, that may lock in consumers.
Facts:
- Eastman Kodak Company manufactures and sells complex photocopiers and micrographic equipment, for which its parts and software are not compatible with competitors' machines.
- Kodak also sells service and replacement parts for its equipment, historically providing 80% to 95% of the service for its machines.
- In the early 1980s, various Independent Service Organizations (ISOs) began servicing Kodak equipment, often at a lower price and with higher quality than Kodak.
- The ISOs acquired the necessary replacement parts from Kodak, independent original-equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and other sources like brokers and used equipment.
- In 1985 and 1986, Kodak implemented a policy of selling replacement parts only to equipment owners who used Kodak's service or repaired their own machines, effectively cutting off the ISOs' supply.
- Kodak also secured agreements with its OEMs that they would not sell parts that fit Kodak equipment to anyone other than Kodak.
- As a result of Kodak's policies, many ISOs were forced out of business or lost substantial revenue, and customers were forced to switch to Kodak's more expensive service.
Procedural Posture:
- Eighteen Independent Service Organizations (ISOs) sued Eastman Kodak Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of § 1 and § 2 of the Sherman Act.
- After limited discovery, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Kodak.
- The ISOs, as appellants, appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Kodak's market power.
- Kodak, as petitioner, successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's lack of market power in the primary market for its equipment preclude, as a matter of law, the possibility of market power in the derivative aftermarkets for its unique service and replacement parts?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
No. A defendant's lack of market power in the primary equipment market does not, as a matter of law, preclude the possibility of market power in derivative aftermarkets. Legal presumptions resting on formalistic economic theory are disfavored in antitrust law, which requires a factual inquiry into market realities. The Court reasoned that significant information costs and switching costs could break the theoretical link between the equipment market and aftermarkets. Consumers may not be able to engage in accurate 'lifecycle pricing' at the time of purchase due to the difficulty of obtaining data on future service needs and costs. Furthermore, once a customer has made a significant investment in equipment, the high cost of switching to a competitor's system can 'lock them in,' allowing the manufacturer to exert market power by raising aftermarket prices. Given the ISOs' evidence of Kodak's exclusionary conduct, increased service prices, and market foreclosure, a reasonable trier of fact could infer that Kodak possessed market power in the parts and service aftermarkets, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes. A manufacturer's conceded lack of power in the interbrand market for its equipment is inconsistent with its possession of market power in wholly derivative aftermarkets for that same equipment. The dissent argued that any rational consumer would factor the expected lifecycle cost of parts and service into their initial equipment purchase decision. If a manufacturer like Kodak were to charge supracompetitive prices in the aftermarkets, it would lose sales in the competitive interbrand equipment market, which disciplines any potential for aftermarket exploitation. The power a manufacturer has over its own unique parts is not the kind of market power the antitrust laws are meant to address, as it is held by virtually every maker of durable goods. The majority's reliance on 'information costs' and customer 'lock-in' describes commonplace market imperfections, not a basis for antitrust liability, and its holding threatens to unleash a torrent of litigation against procompetitive business practices.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacted antitrust law by rejecting a purely theoretical economic approach in favor of a fact-intensive analysis of actual market conditions. It established the 'lock-in' theory, wherein a company without power in a primary market can still be held liable for monopolizing derivative aftermarkets for its own unique parts and service. The ruling affirmed that a single brand's parts and service can constitute a relevant market for antitrust purposes. This precedent has since been widely used in litigation against manufacturers, particularly in high-technology industries, who restrict access to parts and service for their products.
Unlock the full brief for Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs.