Ai Root Company v. Computer/dynamics Inc’s Empirical Analysis
806 F.2d 673 · 1986
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2015 · most notably Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc. (1992), United States of America, v. Microsoft Corporation, (2001)
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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)
Relies on Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde · Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp. · United States v. Loew's Inc. · Bouldis v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The essential test for ascertaining the relevant product market involves the identification of those products or services that are either (1) identical to or (2) available substitutes for the defendant’s product or service.... This comparative analysis has been characterized as the “reasonable interchangeability” standard.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any absolute presumption of market power for copyright or patented product”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. There must be a tying arrangement between two distinct products or services; 2. The defendant must have sufficient economic power in the tying market to appreciably restrain competition in the tied product market. 3. The amount of commerce affected must be “not insubstantial.””
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.