Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Spilled Ink or Economic Progress? The Supreme Court's Decision in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Kobayashi05 Bruce H. Kobayashi of George Mason University School of Law weighs in with Spilled Ink or Economic Progress? The Supreme Court's Decision in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink.

ABSTRACT: This article examines the Supreme Court's recent decision in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink. In that decision, the Court extended its remarkable run of pro-defendant decisions in antitrust cases, holding that plaintiffs in patent tying cases must prove and not presume market power. The Court's rejection of the presumption of market power in the presence of a patent, as well as a special per se rule of illegality for patent ties is consistent with the broad consensus that views patents as distinct from monopolies, and recognizes the pro-competitive uses of tying. While this is a positive step, the Court's decision may be limited by the flawed and outdated modified per se rule used to evaluate tying arrangements generally. Moreover, while the Court undermined the underlying rationale for the modified per se rule against tying, it chose not to revisit this issue. In addition, while the Court's opinion implicitly adopts a robust standard for market power, it failed to address its contradictory holding in Kodak v. ITS, its most recent decision evaluating a tying arrangement.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2008/02/spilled-ink-or.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e5509a74468834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Spilled Ink or Economic Progress? The Supreme Court's Decision in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink:

Comments

Post a comment