Since the late 1940s, when the Supreme Court of Salt Co., against the United States, declared that `it is in itself unreasonable to exclude competitors from any essential market` (15) and in the Oil Co. v. United States standard that `[t]he agreements hardly serve an end that goes beyond the oppression of competition` (16), U.S. courts have ruled the linkage illegal in itself. (17) Although the opinion of the Jefferson Parish Court of Justice of 1984 confirmed the continuing role of an analysis in itself (18), it stressed that the market power of the linked product was a precondition for illegality in itself. (19) Later in the same year, the Court stated that the application of the rule itself to the Union had become a market analysis: 44th tool, 126 p. Ct. at 1292 (in recognition of price discrimination in fully competitive markets); see also footnote 21 above and the accompanying text. The agencies` reasonable approach to ip pooling is reflected in the Antitrust Guidelines for Intellectual Property Licensing («IP Antitrust Guidelines»).
The Anti-Dominant Directives find that `the possibility for a licensee to grant one or more intellectual property assets when the licensee purchases another intellectual property or other cause or service has, in some cases, been considered an illegal label`,46 but also notes that `related agreements may have anti-competitive effects, such agreements . . . lead to significant efficiency gains and competitive advantages. (47) In accordance with the antitrust protection guidelines, agencies examine, at the discretion of the Public Prosecutor`s Office, both anti-competitive effects and efficiency gains resulting from an undertaking. Agencies would likely challenge a facilitator`s agreement if: «(1) the seller has market power in sewing products that the agencies do not necessarily assume is conferred by a patent, copyright or trade secret]; 2. the agreement adversely affects competition on the relevant market for the tied product; and (3) the grounds for the effectiveness of the agreement do not outweigh the anti-competitive effects. (48) Where a flat-rate licence constitutes an identifier (49), agencies assess it according to the same common sense principles that they use to analyse other fisheries agreements. An illegal example of tied selling would be for your bank`s mortgage specialist to tell you that you qualify for a home mortgage, but the bank will only allow it if you transfer your investments to the bank or its related companies. 72. One of the participants discussed how the courts, when the union rule is finally abandoned, can best deal with complex issues, both to find the right answers on a case-by-case basis and to provide some predictability, such as the analysis of commercial practices. May 14 at 54-63 (Lipsky); Abbott B. Lipsky, Amateur in Black (May 14, 2002 Hr`g R.) at 6-12, www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/020514abbottblipskyjr.pdf [hereinafter the Lipsky submission].
. . .