Court Opinion

ID: 9469453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:41:01.918847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:23.876979
License: Public Domain

FEINBERG, Chief Judge,
(concurring):
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I would like to add a few words to recount the history of this case in this court.
The appeal was argued on October 9,1981 and, by opinion dated January 20, 1982, a divided panel affirmed the district court on the group boycott and concerted refusal to deal issues, but reversed and remanded on the tying claim. The majority recognized that a penalty rent could have as strong an adverse effect on Shop & Save’s ability to compete as a forced purchase of groceries from Cross. Accordingly, over a strong dissent by Judge Meskill, we held that a penalty rent should be treated as the equivalent of a tie-in and should be condemned if the trial court found that the other factors for finding a tying violation were present. There then occurred the rare event of a successful petition for rehearing.
The tie-in field, like much of antitrust law, rests on certain economic assumptions that are coming under increased scrutiny, see, e.g., R. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox 365-81 (1978). I concur in the changed result reached by the new majority because I agree that in view of the present case law and the current learning, it would be unjustifiable to extend the law regarding tying to the fact pattern presented here. Penalties exacted for the privilege of buying one product rather than two have been mentioned tangentially at least twice before, and on neither occasion was the practice condemned under the antitrust laws, see International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U.S. 131, 134 & 139, 56 S.Ct. 701, 703 & 705, 80 L.Ed. 1085 (1936) (15% increase in rental for release from condition that lessee buy tabulating cards only from lessor); SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 427 F.Supp. 1089, 1110-14 (E.D.Pa.1976), aff’d on other grounds, 575 F.2d 1056, 1061 & n.3 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838, 99 S.Ct. 123, 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978) (loss of 3% bonus rebate for failure to buy minimum amounts of three products). But cf. United States v. Loew’s, Inc., 371 U.S. 38, 83 S.Ct. 97, 9 L.Ed.2d 11 (1962) (remedial decree forbade non-cost-justified differential between cost of single film and pack*32age. But this relief cannot, under our decision in American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 446 F.2d 1131, 1136-37 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1063, 92 S.Ct. 737, 30 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972), be relied on to determine the elements necessary to prove an illegal tie). I therefore agree with the district court and with the majority in the conclusion that there was no antitrust violation in this case.