Virtual Maintenance, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “). ' 2 . For a more detailed history of the case, see id. 3 . Plaintiffs also claimed that Kodak had unlawfully monopolized and attempted to monopolize the sale of service for Kodak machines in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. 4 . The Supreme Court made clear that Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 , 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348 , 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), did not create a special burden on plaintiffs responding to summary judgment challenges in antitrust cases, but requires only that the non-moving party’s inferences be reasonable and not “economically senseless.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Virtual Maintenance, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc.

2. “Prime has market power in the trivial sense that no one else makes PDGS. But true market power — power sufficient to change and sustain anticompetitive prices — cannot be inferred from this because were Prime to charge exorbitant prices for its software support, its customers would simply switch to some other manufacturer of PDGS-type software. Prime’s lack of market power over the general market for CAD/CAM software thus prevents Prime from controlling the “submarket” for PDGS software.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Virtual Maintenance, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc.