Summary scenario

Kodak appealed to cease enforcement of the judgment ruling in 1921 and 1954 about the policy of price limitation. George Eastman leads Eastman Kodak Co. since its inception in 1888 to become a leading business in the field of unprofessional photography. The Government has concluded that Eastman Kodak monopoly in amateur photography market violates Article 2 of the Sherman Act, by acquiring competitors and using types of exclusive sales contract with the retailer, the judgment was judged the first time in 1921 … This ruling forbade Kodak, ”prevent retailers … freely selling the product of manufacturing competitors,” prevent retailers selling the product of Kodak without permission, and sell “the trademark dispute” or some no-name products of Kodak on it.
In late 1930, Kodak began selling color film called Kodachrome smooth out market, and color print film, Kodacolor in 1954. At this time, the company has accounted for over 90% of the color film market. Kodak sold its color film in the package which included the image laundering, and account for over90% of photo laundering market. This close agreement led to the trial of the monopoly market by the Government and a verdict ruling in 1954. The major of judgment in 1954 is to ban Kodak in “bound or otherwise associated in the sale of color photographic film to photo finishing company. Consequently, color film laundering must be made in places that sell those movies.”
There are five enterprises producing color film which is sold in the U.S market: Kodak, Konica, Agfa and 3M. There is almost no difference about the quality of films that is produced by those enterprises in U.S, but Kodak still sells more than the competitors and sells product at much higher prices: more than 10% than Fuji, double the marginal cost of Kodak. Kodak has its own elasticity of demand as the price at 2. The reason is 50% of American consumers willing to buy only Kodak film without regarding of price, 40% left likes Kodak even more. On the other hands, Kodak sales off for those shops which buy their films and products in bulk, or the stores only sell their films and products.
The antitrust case judgment in 1954 presents the competitive landscape in the photo laundering, has prohibit Kodak combining develop photos taken and film, has also asked Kodak to share the franchise to technology and provide technical support needed for other firms intend joining the market. However, the competition between Minilap and Macrolap in photo laundering that reduced Kodak market share only less than 5% of the films produced by the company.
The local court has decided to give enforcement both verdicts Kodak Company. The Court applied the standard to edit the verdict that has effected since Rufo to against Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 112 S. Ct. 748 (1992). In particular, the standard allows the court "modify the judgment accordingly with changes in market conditions."
The local court got wrong when terminated other judgments based on the loss of the right to control the company's market. Local Court clearly considered dominant market power as the main problem. The court referred to the definition of power is dominant. Following the advice of Judge Easterbrook, and by William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, "The right to dominate the market in the course of antitrust proceedings (Market Power in Antitrust Cases)," 94 Harv. L. Rev. 937.950 (1981), should use the other antitrust measure is better use of market share statistics. It is reasonable to assume that "own elasticity of demand of the price is a measure for the right to govern better market" (ibid.). And finally, entirely reasonable to rely on the testimony of expert economic Kodak, Jerry Hausman, that the own elasticity of demand as the price of Kodak is 2.
The court declared this judgment is to destroy the dominance of Kodak technology for image color developing industry, by requiring Kodak franchise and provide technical information for the company to the image laundering competed companies. Realize that judgment has been made of its basic objectives to create a competitive photo developing market, and that both Kodak and Qualex have no power to control the market, so that the Kodak building the package of film and photo finishing products are made in a professional competition.
However, the court was failed because of this evidence, although based on other clearly evidence and accepted by the economic principles, but it contradicts with the competitive position of Kodak. Accordingly, Kodak's failure proves that the company no longer owns the power to control the market again. Moreover, we believe that this court can use it (and other results will be argued later) as evidence confirmed that Kodak still has the power to govern the market as it has done in 1921 and 1954.
The decision to terminate the project in 1921 is based on the judgment of the court that Kodak no longer dominates the market right anymore, or at least no longer has a dominant market illegally. Because there are so many evidences that Kodak may still dominate the market, this court should reverse the recovery documentation on the project in 1921.
Mistake of local courts seriously threaten the enforcement of antitrust laws, and therefore, we want the court will reverse and go back to the instructions for restoring the judgment 1921 and 1954.

Questions:
1. These judgments affect the previous operation of Kodak? Why are they given?
2. Who are Kodak's competitors? How the Kodak's market share against competitors like? what is Kodak's competitive advantage?
3. What could the product market and relevant geographic market of a company be?

Answer
Question 1: These judgments affect the previous operation of Kodak? Why are they given?
As we all know, the 1921 and 1954 judgments is to prevent Kodak monopoly to dominate the market. Thus, the termination of execution of this judgment also means ending the restrictions on the operation of Kodak.
The 1921 verdict: In the determination of his break in 1921 the court ruled as follows forbade Kodak”prevent retailers … freely selling the product of manufacturing competitors,” prevent retailers selling the product of Kodak without permission, and sell “the trademark dispute” or some no-name products of Kodak on it. This judgment has been given and it is affected to the annexation, expanding the scope and scale of Kodak in the marketplace, limiting the spread of the acquired company's market and ensures the interests of consumers. As we all know, if the merger or takeover of Kodak is still conducted by Kodak monopoly position in the market is raised higher.
The verdict in 1954: the 1954 antitrust case presents the competitive landscape in the photo developing, has prohibited Kodak package washing photos taken with film, Kodak has also being asked to franchise provides technology and the technical support needed for other firms to join the market. The franchise business and technology provide necessary technical support for those intending to enter the market that has a great influence on the business of Kodak. The ruling also forced Kodak to give up - as it has done - some companies which it annexed. This separation makes the concentration of corporate decline. That means monopoly / market power of Kodak diminished along with giving some of it was annexed by Kodak.
The verdict has given Kodak's shrinking market share and help the competitors have the opportunity to enter the market as well as increase revenue for its production.
Kodak began selling market color film called Kodachrome slippery in the late 1930s, and color print film, Kodacolor since 1954. At this time, the company has accounted for owning over 90% of the color film market. Because of its color film Kodak sold only in packages supplied with pictures related to photos developing, it also accounts for over 90% market photo developing. This close agreement led to the trial of the government monopoly and a verdict ruling in 1954. The major project in 1954 is to ban Kodak bound or by other links in the sale of color photographic film to photo finishing company. Consequently, color film has to be made at the point of sell that film. "Court said that" market color photographic film and color photographs wash almost 1954 manipulate by Kodak. "Kodak accounted for over 90% market share of amateur color film photography in 1954. Kodak does wash the entire film captured with color photography of the company, because it controls the technology, and so the image laundering is combined in the film cost.
The court declared this judgment is to destroy the dominance of Kodak technology for image color laundering industry, by requiring Kodak franchise and provide technical information for the competitive companies in field of image laundering. Realize that judgment has been made of its basic objectives to create a competitive market photo developing, and that both Kodak and Qualex have no power to control the market, so that the Kodak building the light the film and photo finishing products are made in a professional competition.

Question 2: Who are Kodak's competitors? How the Kodak's market share against competitors like? What is Kodak's competitive advantage?

There are five enterprises producing color film sold in the U.S. market: Kodak, Fuji, Konica, Agfa, and 3M. Although "virtually no difference in the quality of films produced by companies such as Kodak, Fuji, Konica and Agfa" in the U.S., but Kodak still outselling the competition and sell products with much higher prices.
Kodak may outsell its competitors though at pretty much higher price because of appreciating by 50% of consumers in this country only buy Kodak film without regard to price, and 40% other consumers prefer Kodak more. Another factor is related to Kodak pretty much discount stores sell many more Kodak film (or just capture Kodak selling film).
Even if the findings of the district court that sell Kodak-quality photographic film is not better than competitors at a significantly higher price, while still maintaining significant market share in terms of revenue in the U.S., once again proves that Kodak continues to dominate the market.
According to local court, "the competitors of Kodak photographic film is produced with the same quality ...".And although Kodak's film has quality not better than competitors, the company still sets the price much higher than the competitor's price. This can be clearly seen from the findings of the district court that Kodak sold 67% of the number of films shot in the U.S. and accounts for 75% market share by revenue. The court also found that the Kodak set retail prices at the restaurants and drug stores with prices 4.5% higher than the competitors. More importantly, because of Kodak and its competitors sell only at wholesale, not retail directly, Kodak, the evidence cannot refute, was sold to U.S. retailers at higher prices from 10 Fuji% compared to at least 20% of Scotch brand of 3M.
Despite the huge difference in price as a result, Kodak continues to maintain 67% -75% market share in the U.S., make the closest competitors of it, Fuji, becoming tiny market share only about 10% of sales in the U.S. Although Fuji's strategy of "lower prices any lower price that Kodak set out to capture video of the company" and sold to retailers at a price lower than the price of the Kodak 10%, it is important Kodak nevertheless maintained its leading position with a market share of 67% compared to Fuji's market share is only 10% of sales in the U.S..
Since 1986, Kodak has recovered large market share in the field of image laundering by implementing a number of takeovers. The most important villages are set up joint venture created Qualex, Inc.. Qualex was developing very quickly, mainly due to annexation, a photo developing chain of 65 stores across the country. This company has 70% market share of photos macrolab washers; presently, three companies - Qualex, Konica and Fuji - accounting for 95% market share in wholesale of photo finishing.
Kodak may impose restrictions or encouraging its agents to make it difficult for them to sell products of competing brands. Since all retail sales needs to sell Kodak’s goods, it will have little choice but to accept the agreement of Kodak. This can affect your ability to reduce the competition to ensure distribution outlets to ensure and strengthen the monopoly position of Kodak.
There are many retailers are mainly consumed products of Kodak, Kodak should have a system wide retail, Kodak discount pretty much for stores sell many more Kodak film (or just sell Kodak film shoot ). In the U.S., most nearly 241,000 photos and film retailers, including convenience store (such as K-Mart), grocery store and pharmacy, and specializes in camera stores, are selling Kodak film's shooting. In contrast, only about 71,000 other stores that have products of close competitors of this company is Fuji, photographic film due to other production companies only in a few stores.
Kodak may also require treatment package or sell their films. In other words, customers of Kodak film will be recommended that Kodak will handle their films through subsidiary Qualex. This may provide a way unfair for Kodak significant market power in the market as well as photo developing photographic film market.
Market photographic film and color wash color photos with Kodak 1954 virtually manipulated. "Kodak accounted for over 90% market share in field of amateur color film photography in 1954. Kodak made the whole wash captures on film shooting mystery of the company, because it controls the technology, and so the image is washed in shooting the film cost.

Question 3: What could the product market and relevant geographic market of a company be?

Competition Law has introduced the concept of the relevant market as follows:
"The market is concerned that an environment is determined by two factors: product (goods and services) and geographic areas of the product. Products include all goods and services can be replaced reasonable for the goods and services that agencies consider competition. Geographical area of the product is the area in which the supply and demand conditions of the products mentioned above are considered to be the most. "
The determination of the relevant market is to be able to assess the market power of a business, is to see the level of product and service interchangeably competitive pressure on providers products and services, respectively. The determination of the relevant market is an important basis for the law enforcement agencies concluded a specific behavior is in violation of the Competition Law or not.