In Eastman Kodak V

In Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, Kodak was charged with tying the sale of service of their copiers and other equipment to the sale of parts. The Supreme Court ruled:

A) no tying arrangement existed because the markets for service and sale of parts overlapped
B) a tying arrangement existed and Kodak had potential monopoly power
C) a tying arrangement existed, but Kodak held a small share of the market for service and parts, so rule of reason analysis allowed the arrangement to stand
D) no tying arrangement existed because independent service organizations could purchase Kodak parts from Kodak whenever they so desired
E) no tying arrangement was proved to have existed, so there could be no antitrust illegality