Berkey Photo, Inc v. Eastman Kodak Company Eastman Kodak Company v. Berkey Photo, Inc
| Decision Date | 19 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-427,No.79-499,79-427,79-499 |
| Citation | 444 U.S. 1093,62 L.Ed.2d 783,100 S.Ct. 1061 |
| Parties | BERKEY PHOTO, INC. v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY v. BERKEY PHOTO, INC |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
An obviously carefully considered opinion of the Court of Appeals comprising 99 pages in a separate appendix to the petition for certiorari in this case, dealing as it does with the complexities, refinements, and contradictions embodied in the decisional law construing §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act is obviously not an attractive candidate for review under our discretionary certiorari jurisdiction. Nonetheless, I do not think we may "let this cup pass from us" unless we are prepared to forgo the opportunity to review some propositions enunciated by the Court of Appeals in this case which strike me as little less than bizarre.
Mr. Justice BLACKMUN would grant certiorari and set the cases for oral argument.
One of the principal issues decided by the Court of Appeals was the obligation of respondent and cross-petitioner Kodak to "predisclose" information about its camera and film system to competing camera manufacturers prior to offering such camera and film for sale to the public. As to the camera market issues, the Court of Appeals held that Kodak had no such obligation, but as to the photofinishing and photofinishing equipment markets, the Court of Appeals held that Kodak violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by using its market power over films and cameras to obtain a competitive advantage with respect to photofinishing and photofinishing equipment. 603 F.2d 263, 279-285, 304. And as to the joint development project, the court held that Kodak violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by including in the agreement a nondisclosure provision, even though Kodak made an investment of millions of dollars in the project that presumably was essential to its success.
To one not schooled in the niceties of antitrust litigation, the notion that a statute designed to foster competition requires one competitor to disclose to another, in advance of marketing a product to the general public, its plan to introduce the new product, is difficult to fathom. And this Court has held as recently as United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966), that it is not a violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act for a business with monopoly power to achieve "growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident." 384 U.S., at 570-571, 86 S.Ct., at 1703-1704. I should think this reasoning is equally applicable to the alleged violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act which the Court of Appeals also dealt with in its opinion.
But the Court of Appeals in this case held that "the rule of Grinnell must be read together with the teaching of Griffith [United States v. Griffith, 334 U.S. 100, 107, 68 S.Ct. 941, 945, 92 L.Ed. 1236 (1948)], that the mere existence of monopoly power 'whether lawfully or unlawfully acquired,' is in itself violative of § 2, 'provided it is coupled with the purpose or intent to exercise that power,' " 603 F.2d, at 274, even though this Court in Grinnell did not express a similar limitation on its holding.
One can understand the exasperation revealed by the statement in the opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Com. v. Schneider
-
Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., s. 82-1407
...234, 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 274 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093, 100 S.Ct. 1061, 62 L.Ed.2d 783 (1980). Of course, the fact of injury and damages suffered by reason of a violation of the antitrust laws must also be shown for ......
-
Telectronics Proprietary, Ltd. v. Medtronic, Inc.
...structure is necessary." Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 272 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093, 100 S.Ct. 1061, 62 L.Ed.2d 783 (1980). There are several elements to a section 1 claim. There must be (1) concerted action, (2) by two or more persons, and (3) the......
-
North Am. Soccer League v. NAT. FOOTBALL LEAGUE
...Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 273 (2d Cir. 1979), per Kaufman, Ch.J., cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093, 100 S.Ct. 1061, 62 L.Ed.2d 783 (1980). No Sherman Act violation appears in this Having held that the NFL's acts do not implicate the Sherman Act, no question arises un......
-
Table of cases
...Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 74 F.R.D. 613 (S.D.N.Y. 1977), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093 (1980), 211n36 Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Inc., 519 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1975), 50n20 Beusch, United States v., 596 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1979),......
-
Coherence or Confusion: The Future of the Global Antitrust Conversation
...United States v. Griffith, 334 U.S. 100 (1948).49 Berkey Photo v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 276 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093 (1980).50 Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., 504 U.S. 451, 480n.29 (1992).51 506 U.S. at Coherence or confusion :417generally followed ......
-
Some Remarks on Monopoly Leveraging
...equipment and ser-vices."Kodak, however, neither had nor was close to obtaining25 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093 (1980).26 United States v. Griffith, 334 U.S. 100, 107 (1948) ("[T]he use ofmonopoly power, however lawfully acquired, to foreclose competition, togain ......
-
CHAPTER 11 ANTITRUST PITFALLS IN THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY
...Fitting Co., 704 F.2d 787 (5th Cir. 1983). [42] Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1093 (1980). [43] See, e.g. Catlin v. Washington Energy Co., 791 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1986) [44] See, Twin Laboratories v. Weider Health & Fitness, 900......