Eastman Kodak

Eastman Kodak built a consumer franchise on film and cameras and also sold copiers and other business equipment. A copier owner needs parts and someone to install them. Kodak sold that service. Independent service organizations wanted to repair Kodak machines too, and they needed Kodak parts to do it.

The independents said Kodak had tied parts to Kodak service and had refused to sell parts to shops that competed with Kodak's own technicians. Equipment buyers might have had choices when they first picked a copier. Once the machine was installed, parts and service were a separate market they could not easily leave. That is the aftermarket lock-in theory. A lower court had granted summary judgment for Kodak. In 1992 the Supreme Court reversed and let the claim proceed.

The library status is won by the plaintiff, meaning the Supreme Court ruling that allowed the aftermarket claim to go forward. The case continued after that ruling. This profile does not state who won a later trial. Kodak's film business later shrank. The 1992 case is about copier parts and service.

The equipment sale and the later repair are different purchases, and the case is about the second one.

Refusing parts to independent servicers is the conduct the plaintiffs were allowed to test.

The library stands on the plaintiffs' side of the 1992 Supreme Court decision, not of an unstated final judgment.

Copier owners pay for service and have little choice of parts once the machine is in place.

Independent repair shops were the plaintiffs who needed those parts to stay in business.