In Re Data General Corp. Antitrust Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2012
4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Brunswick Corporation v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat Inc · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Recovery of investment costs has been explicitly excluded from the narrowly-construed exceptions to the per se rule against tie-ins.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has not shown, nor has it raised a genuine issue of fact with respect to its ability to show at trial, that it is any less capable than was Jerrold Electronics [United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 187 F.Supp. 545 (E.D.Pa.1960), aff'd per curiam, 365 U.S. 567, 81 S.Ct. 755, 5 L.Ed.2d 806 (1961) ] of adopting the less restrictive alternative of restructured prices in order to recoup its investment costs and maintain its incentive for further innovation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it would be unfair to permit emulator-CPU manufacturers to reap the benefits of [defendant's] software [research and development] when they sell their competing CPUs for use with [defendant's] software.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.