1. kaiumkuakata@gmail.com : Ab kaium : Ab kaium
  2. akaskuakata@gmail.com : akas :
  3. mithukuakata@gmail.com : mithu :
  4. mizankuakata@gmail.com : mizan :
  5. habibullahkhanrabbi@gmail.com : rabbi :
  6. amaderkuakata.r@gmail.com : rumi sorif : rumi sorif
মঙ্গলবার, ২৭ সেপ্টেম্বর ২০২২, ০৪:৪৩ অপরাহ্ন
বিজ্ঞপ্তিঃ-
প্রতিটি জেলা উপজেলায় প্রতিনিধি নিয়োগ দেওয়া হবে। যোগাযোগঃ-০১৯১১১৪৫০৯১, ০১৭১২৭৪৫৬৭৪

Just like the Judge sees, ante, during the 479-481, letter

  • আপডেট সময় শুক্রবার, ১৫ জুলাই, ২০২২
  • ১৪ বার

Just like the Judge sees, ante, during the 479-481, letter

Nor does a tie ranging from parts and you can service offer Kodak incremental exploitative command over those people users-expert or otherwise not-that have the newest going misfortune to be “secured into the” to Kodak gadgets

The new Court truthfully observes that the antitrust statutes don’t permit even an organic monopolist to help you project the dominance power on other market, we. e., so you can “‘exploi[t] his dominant status in a single market to grow their kingdom into the following.'” Ante, at the 480, letter. 30 (quoting Minutes-Picayune Publishing Co. v. You, 345 You. Yet not, whenever a manufacturer uses the control of unmarried-labeled pieces locate determine during the solitary-branded service, the new dominance “leverage” is close to usually out-of zero important issues, because of best title between your users in all the topic aftermarkets (people that you desire replacement for parts to possess Kodak devices and people who you would like maintenance away from Kodak gizmos). Whenever you to reputation can be found, the fresh wrap will not allow the brand in order to venture control of a class regarding users unlike that which it’s currently in a position to mine (and you may completely) without having any hassle of one’s tie. Cf., age. grams., Bowman, Attaching Agreements in addition to Control State, 67 Yale L. J. 19, 21-twenty seven (1957).

pieces for its own brand name numbers to “field power” off a characteristics sufficient to permit invocation of one’s per se signal facing tying. 29, you will find applied brand new by itself laws to company connections out-of foreent to aftermarket types-but only if the fresh new maker’s dominance strength regarding products, coupled with the usage of derivative transformation since “counting equipment” to measure the new intensity of customer devices usage, let the producer to take part in speed discrimination, and you can thereby even more fully exploit the interbrand power. Come across All over the world Sodium Co. v. All of us, 332 U. S. 392 (1947); International Organization Computers Corp. v. You, 298 You. S. 131 (1936); Joined Shoe Equipments Corp. v. You, 258 U. S. 451 (1922). That type of long lasting possible opportunity to practice rates discrimination try unavailable to a manufacturing plant-instance Kodak-one to lacks strength within interbrand height. A link ranging from two aftermarket types does practically nothing so you’re able to increase a competitive maker’s capability to extract dominance rents from its customers.step three

step three New Judge claims that list in such a case implies if you don’t, i. e., one to a wrap between bits and you can solution for some reason really does enable Kodak to boost overall dominance earnings. Select ante, during the 479-481, letter. 30. Although the Judge doesn’t identify the fresh listing evidence on which they is dependent, the latest suggestion, seem to, would be the fact such a wrap encourages rates discrimination between excellent, “high-volume” pages of Kodak gadgets as well as their unsophisticated equivalents. The brand new expert pages (exactly who, brand new Legal presumes, invariably notice-provider their gadgets) are permitted to find Kodak bits in place of in addition to to acquire supracompetitively priced Kodak service, because the unsophisticated is-through the imposition of your tiecompelled to shop for each other. Find ante, during the 475-476.

S. 594, 611 (1953))

When you are superficially tempting, from the base which factor lacks coherence. Whether they worry about-services their equipment or perhaps not, rational foremarket users (the individuals consumers who are not yet , “locked inside” so you’re able to Kodak resources) will be determined so you can Kodak’s opposition if for example the cost of Kodak devices, making use of expected price of aftermarket help, is higher than competitive account. This might be real no matter what Kodak distributes the program rate one of gadgets, bits, and you may service. Find

Neither provides one legal out of appeals (save your self to your Ninth Circuit panel below) accepted solitary-labeled aftermarket strength as a basis to possess invoking the fresh new by itself tying prohibition. Pick Virtual Repairs, Inc. v. Primary Computer, Inc., 957 F.2d 1318, 1328 (CA6 1992) (“Defining the market because of the buyers request pursuing the customer has elected one merchant fails to remember that new vendor . need certainly to take on almost every other equivalent providers as appointed the fresh new

supra, from the 495. Ergo, on such users, Kodak’s shortage of interbrand electricity entirely inhibits they off using their an effective tie ranging from parts and you may services while the a car for rate discrimination. Once the lockedin advanced pieces consumer is just as helpless as locked-in unsophisticated that, I select absolutely nothing to getting gathered because of the speed discrimination in favor of your farmersonly previous. When the for example price discrimination was basically desired, yet not, it would not have to be finished ultimately, thanks to a tie from bits to help you provider. Area 2(a) of Robinson-Patman Operate, 15 You. S. C. § 13(a), create stop giving straight down bits cost toward advanced level consumers only “where aftereffect of instance discrimination may be drastically to lessen race or have a tendency to manage a monopoly in almost any collection of business, or even injure, damage, or stop race which have individuals who possibly gives or consciously receives the advantageous asset of particularly discrimination, or having people out of often ones . ” Ibid.; see, e. grams., Falls Urban area Marketplace, Inc. v. Vanco Drink, Inc., 460 You. S. 428, 434-435 (1983). One banned impression have a tendency to is when speed-discriminated items are marketed to own resale (we. elizabeth., to help you buyers who are always within the race with one another). E. g., FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 You. S. 37, 47 (1948); look for P. Areeda & L. Kaplow, Antitrust Analysis , 600, p. 923 (1988) (“Secondary-range burns off pops up [in Robinson-Patman Act] when a robust firm to find provides in the positive rates thereby increases a definitive advantage on its competition that are forced to pay high prices for the supplies”). They scarcely happens where, since the would be the instance right here, the price-discriminated products are marketed to several companies to have application.

আপনার ফেইসবুকে শেয়ার করুন।

এরকম আরো খবর
© এই সাইটের কোন নিউজ/ অডিও/ভিডিও কপি করা দন্ডনিয় অপরাধ।
Created By Hafijur Rahman akas