Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.’s Empirical Analysis
603 F.2d 263 · 1979
Citation profile
182 federal appellate · 64 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 482 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Berkey Photo Inc v. Eastman Kodak Company Eastman Kodak Company (1980), McI Communications Corporation McI v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company (1983)
182 federal appellate · 64 district · 7 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
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · 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 482 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the use of monopoly power attained in one market to gain a competitive advantage in another is a violation of § 2, even if there has not been an attempt to monopolize the second market. It is the use of economic power that creates the liability. But, as we have indicated, a large firm does not violate § 2 simply by reaping the competitive rewards attributable to its efficient size, nor does an integrated business offend the Sherman Act whenever one of its departments benefits from association with a division possessing a monopoly in its own market. So long as we allow a firm to compete in several fields, we must expect it to seek the competitive advantage of its broad-based activity — more efficient production, greater ability to develop complementary products, reduced transaction costs, and so forth. These are gains that accrue to any integrated firm, regardless of its market share, and they cannot by themselves be considered uses of monopoly power.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is no reason to allow the exercise of [monopoly] power to the detriment of competition, in either the controlled market or any other. That the competition in the leveraged market may not be destroyed but merely distorted does not make it more palatable.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'the use of [monopoly] power [in one market], however lawfully acquired, to foreclose competition, to gain a competitive advantage, or to destroy a competitor' in another distinct market.”
8 later decisions 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.