Source: cases/15usc1/f3d-117-1137-systemcare-v-wang-laboratories.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_117/1137_01/index.html
The essence of section l’s contract, combination, or conspiracy requirement in the tying context is the agreement, however reluctant, of a buyer to purchase from a seller a tied product or service along with a tying product or service.
Even though a seller and a buyer may not share the same motive for entering into the anticompetitive agreement, the concerted action requirement is satisfied when their minds meet in an unlawful tying agreement.
We hold that a contract between a buyer and seller satisfies the concerted action element of section 1 of the Sherman Act where the seller coerces a buyer’s acquiescence in a tying arrangement imposed by the seller.
Evidence that the buyer acquiesces in a tying arrangement will unequivocally “exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and [buyers] were acting independently.”
Contrary to Wang’s argument, the requirements for proof of concerted action in a tying ease are consistent with those applied in cases involving other unreasonable restraints of trade.
casedsl 1 case /f3d/117/1137-01 name Systemcare, Inc. v. Wang Laboratories Corp. cite 117 F.3d 1137 (1997) court United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit date 1997-06-24 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_117/1137_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_117.jsonl sha1=b10baf0626f14ea3882a72d5220b10f4e16eadca chars=30855 law 15usc1 role rule-announced posture civil; tying claim by rival service provider; summary judgment for defendant for lack of concerted action, affirmed by panel; rehearing en banc limited to the concerted-action question; plaintiff appeals result remanded element agreement : not-reached variant vertical-agreement/coerced-acquiescence-in-tie fact @2142..2259 [supports] | Systemcare services Wang computer hardware in Colorado and competes with Wang in providing hardware support services. fact @2260..2405 [supports] | Beginning in 1985, Wang offered its minicomputer users a package of hardware and software support services called Wang Software Services (“WSS”). fact @2406..2622 [supports] | For the purposes of this opinion, we expressly assume, but do not decide, that under the WSS contract, a customer must subscribe to Wang’s hardware support program in order to obtain Wang’s software support services. fact @3435..3651 [cuts-against] | the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wang because Systemcare failed to “establish a conspiracy between at least two parties” to impose a tying arrangement on Wang’s customers as required by Chanute rule @17988..18223 | The essence of section l’s contract, combination, or conspiracy requirement in the tying context is the agreement, however reluctant, of a buyer to purchase from a seller a tied product or service along with a tying product or service. rule @18837..19048 | Even though a seller and a buyer may not share the same motive for entering into the anticompetitive agreement, the concerted action requirement is satisfied when their minds meet in an unlawful tying agreement. held @17772..17987 | We hold that a contract between a buyer and seller satisfies the concerted action element of section 1 of the Sherman Act where the seller coerces a buyer’s acquiescence in a tying arrangement imposed by the seller. gloss The seller's own customer contract supplies the plurality; no third-party co-conspirator is needed (overruling Chanute/McKenzie). Distinguished from a Colgate unilateral refusal to deal (announced terms, no agreement extracted). Rule announced, not applied: the en banc court expressly assumes without deciding that the WSS contract ties software support to hardware support, and the claim that failed below only for want of a second conspirator goes back for everything else. element agreement.x-monsanto-exclusion-of-independent-action : not-reached variant express-tie/buyer-acquiescence-excludes-independent-action rule @26210..26374 | Evidence that the buyer acquiesces in a tying arrangement will unequivocally “exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and [buyers] were acting independently.” held @24419..24603 | Contrary to Wang’s argument, the requirements for proof of concerted action in a tying ease are consistent with those applied in cases involving other unreasonable restraints of trade. gloss Monsanto's heightened evidentiary showing for vertical price-fixing adds nothing where the tie is an express contract term; the court reserves the question for implicit ties. Stated as a rule about what evidence would suffice; no evidence of this case is weighed. element restraint : not-reached rule @5624..5851 [quoted] | A tying arrangement constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade if “the seller has ‘appreciable economic power’ in the tying product market and if the arrangement affects a substantial volume of commerce in the tied market.” gloss Wang's market-power and no-conditioning arguments were raised below but not decided by the district court, panel, or en banc court; left for remand. element restraint.market-power : not-reached element injury : not-reached element standing : not-reached element commerce : not-reached misfit The case-level role is rule-announced, so every block inherits it and must carry a `rule` quote; the bare not-reached blocks were given `role background` only to pass the checker. "Element not touched in a rule-announcing opinion" has no role value. misfit The plaintiff is a competitor in the tied market and NOT a party to the agreement that satisfies the element; the agreement is between the defendant and non-party customers. The notation has no way to say who the parties to the `agreement` are (defendant + coerced buyers) as distinct from who sues. misfit The opinion's main work is overruling circuit precedent (Chanute, McKenzie) and resolving an intra-circuit conflict; that change-of-law event has no construct (a `rule` line cannot say "overrules X"). misfit Most of the opinion's factual narration describes OTHER cases (Black Gold, McKenzie, Smith Machinery, Chanute); few sentences are facts of this case. Polarity is forced on them anyway: one fact line is neutral party background (tagged [supports]) and one is procedural history — the district court's summary judgment for want of a second conspirator, tagged [cuts-against] although it is a reversed lower-court ruling, not a fact about the agreement. misfit [quoted] is all-or-nothing per line: the `rule` under restraint is the court's lead-in plus Eastman Kodak's words (tagged [quoted]); the Monsanto rule line is the court's own new proposition wrapped around a Monsanto phrase (left untagged). The court states no tying-restraint test of its own.