Image Technical Services, Inc. (ITS), an independent service organization (ISO), provides ser v ices for companies with copying machines made by the Eastman Kodak Co. In response to such competition, Kodak tied the sale of any of its parts to an agreement not to contract for services from any ISO. Under the terms of such an agreement, a customer who wished to buy Kodak parts had to agree not to purchase service from an ISO. ITS brought a lawsuit against Kodak under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

In the suit, ITS alleged that such arrangements amounted to the type of tying agre e ment that was specifically outlawed by the Sherman Act. Kodak filed a motion for a summary judgment, arguing that the purchase of parts and the ser v ice of the machines with those parts did not represent the purchase of two separate products. Kodak concluded that it was therefore entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Should the Court grant the summary judgment motion, or is there enough evidence of a tying agreement here to allow the matter to proceed to trial? Explain.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., et al., 504 U.S. 451 (U.S. Sup. Ct.).