Vertical Relations

Part V - Vertical Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017

Edited by

Roger D. Blair and

D. Daniel Sokol

Show author details

Roger D. Blair: Affiliation:
University of Florida
D. Daniel Sokol: Affiliation:
University of Florida

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Antitrust, Intellectual Property, and High Tech , pp. 377 - 442

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316671313 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Clayton Act, Section 3, 15 U.S.C. § 14Google Scholar

Sherman Act, Section 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1Google Scholar

Sherman Act, Section 2, 15 U.S.C. § 2Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

A.I. Root Co. v. Computer/Dynamics, Inc., 806 F.2d 673 (6th Cir. 1986)Google Scholar

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 388 F.2d 272 (2d Cir. 1967)Google Scholar

BookLocker.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 650 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D. Me. 2009)Google Scholar

Borschow Hosp. & Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Cesar Castillo Inc., 96 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 1996)Google Scholar

Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (D. Utah 1999)Google Scholar

Carpa, Inc. v. Ward Foods, Inc., 536 F.2d 39 (5th Cir. 1976)Google Scholar

Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 781 F.3d 264 (6th Cir. 2015)Google Scholar

Digidyne Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 734 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir.1984)Google Scholar

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992)Google Scholar

Foremost Pro Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 703 F.2d 534 (9th Cir. 1983)Google Scholar

Fortner Enterprises, Inc., v. U.S. Steel Corp., 394 U.S. 495 (1969)Google Scholar

Hack v. President & Fellows of Yale College, 237 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2000)Google Scholar

Heatransfer Corp. v. Volkswagenwerk, 553 F.2d 964 (5th Cir. 1977)Google Scholar

Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U.S.1 (1912)Google Scholar

IBM v. United States, 298 U.S. 131 (1936)Google Scholar

Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006)Google Scholar

International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947)Google Scholar

Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984)Google Scholar

Krehl v. Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream Co., 664 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1982)Google Scholar

MCA Television Ltd. v. Public Interest Corp., 171 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1999)Google Scholar

Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U.S. 661 (1944)Google Scholar

Midwestern Waffles, Inc. v. Waffle House, Inc., 734 F.2d 705 (11th Cir. 1984)Google Scholar

Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942)Google Scholar

Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917)Google Scholar

Multistate Legal Studies, Inc. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal & Professional Publications, Inc., 63 F.3d 1540 (10th Cir. 1995)Google Scholar

Northern v. McGraw-Edison Co., 542 F.2d 1336 (8th Cir. 1976)Google Scholar

Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958)Google Scholar

Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Johnson Broad. Inc., 432 F. Supp. 2d 707 (S.D. Tex. 2006)Google Scholar

Response of Carolina, Inc. v. Leasco Response, Inc., 537 F.2d 1307 (5th Cir. 1976)Google Scholar

Shamrock Marketing, Inc. v. Bridgestone Bandag, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 2d 972 (W.D.Ky. 2011)Google Scholar

Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 448 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1971)Google Scholar

Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 337 U.S. 293 (1949)Google Scholar

Tele Atlas v. NAVTEQ Corp., 397 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (N.D. Cal. 2005)Google Scholar

United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 187 F.Supp. 545 (E.D.Pa.1960), aff’d per curiam, 365 U.S. 567 (1961)Google Scholar

United States v. Loew’s, Inc., 371 U.S. 38 (1962)Google Scholar

United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)Google Scholar

United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131 (1948)Google Scholar

Valassis Comm’ns, Inc. v. News Am. Inc., 2011 WL 2420048 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 24, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 2413471 (E.D. Mich. June 15, 2011)Google Scholar

Areeda, Phillip E. and Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2004. Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application Vol. 9 (2nd edn). New York: Aspen.Google Scholar

Bilicki, Byron A. 1984. Standard Antitrust Analysis and the Doctrine of Patent Misuse: A Unification Under the Rule of Reason. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 46, 209–39.Google Scholar

Bohannan, Christina and Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2012. Creation without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bork, Robert. 1978. The Antitrust Paradox. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Bowman, Ward S. 1973. Patent and Antitrust. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Craswell, Richard. 1982. Tying Requirements in Competitive Markets: The Consumer Protection Issues. Boston University Law Review, 62, 661–700.Google Scholar

Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2005. The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hovenkamp, Herbert, Janis, Mark, Lemley, Mark, Leslie, Christopher, and Carrier, Michael. 2016. Antitrust and IP: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law. 3rd edn. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar

Hylton, Keith N. 2003. Antitrust Law: Economic Theory and Common Law Evolution. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leslie, Christopher R. 1999. Unilaterally Imposed Tying Arrangements and Antitrust’s Concerted Action Requirement. Ohio State Law Journal, 60, 1773–876.Google Scholar

Leslie, Christopher R. 2004. Cutting Through Tying Theory with Occam’s Razor: A Simple Explanation of Tying Arrangements. Tulane Law Review, 78, 727–825.Google Scholar

Leslie, Christopher R. 2007. Tying Conspiracies. William & Mary Law Review, 48, 2247–312.Google Scholar

Leslie, Christopher R. 2011. Patent Tying, Price Discrimination, and Innovation. Antitrust Law Journal, 77, 811–54.Google Scholar

Leslie, Christopher R. 2015. The Commerce Requirement in Tying Law. Iowa Law Review, 100, 2135–60.Google Scholar

Meurer, Michael J. 2003. Vertical Restraints and Intellectual Property Law: Beyond Antitrust. Minnesota Law Review, 87, 1871–912.Google Scholar

Nalebuff, Barry. 2004. Bundling as an Entry Barrier. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 159–87.Google Scholar

Posner, Richard A. 2001. Antitrust Law. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Schmidt, Hedvig. 2009. Competition Law, Innovation and Antitrust. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Whinston, Michael D. 1990. Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion. American Economic Review, 80, 837–59.Google Scholar

Wood, Laurence I. 1942. Patents and Antitrust Law. New York: Commerce Clearing House.Google Scholar