In Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, Kodak was charged ...

[notis]

In Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, Kodak was charged with tying the sale of service of their copiers and other equipment to the sale of parts. The Supreme Court ruled:
 a. no tying arrangement existed because the markets for service and sale of parts overlapped b. no tying arrangement was proved to have existed, so there could be no antitrust illegality
  c. a tying arrangement existed, but Kodak held a small share of the market for service and parts, so rule of reason analysis allowed the arrangement to stand
  d. no tying arrangement existed because independent service organizations could purchase Kodak parts fromKodak whenever they so desired e. none of the other choices

Question 2

If the EEOC, responding to a complaint, does not file a discrimination suit, the employee has lost the chance to have the matter considered in court.
 a. True
  b. False
  Indicate whether the statement is true or false

[AISCAMPING]

Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

FALSE

[notis]

Gracias!

[nothere]

Wow, this really help