1.DECISIONThe Commission adopted three negative decisions on the link.75 All three concerned contractual links, two of which concerned the attachment of consumables to the primary product76. The most robust statement that can be made on the tether is that it is ubiquitous. Consider the following examples: Shoes are sold in pairs; Hotels sometimes offer breakfast, lunch or dinner with the room; There is no unbundled car; and no self-replicating French restaurant would allow its customers to drink a bottle of wine that does not come out of its cellar. In a sense, as Robert H. Bork pointed out in his famous book Third, the formal framework for link analysis is almost a copy of the American approach itself (both in terms of the first and second phase of American jurisprudence), according to a four-step assessment: the link can be divided into two different practices. : horizontal link and vertical link: in a binding agreement, the product is that the Vendéen actually wants to buy, called a “binding product”, while the additional product that the Vende must buy to complete the sale is called “linked product”. Typically, the binding product is a desirable commodity, which is in high demand by Vendees in a particular market. The bound product is generally less desirable, of lower quality or otherwise difficult to sell. For example, film distributors often link the sale of popular video cassettes to the purchase of second films that, due to lack of demand, pile up in their warehouses. Starting with the question “if there is a possibility that the economic effect of the agreement is that . . . .
The petitioners closed competition on the merits of a separate product market from the binder market”42 The Supreme Court rejected a functional relationship approach to determining whether one or two products were involved. Instead, the Court focused on the nature of the application for both products: it could be argued that we will raise the bar too high by insisting that there is empirical evidence that these conditions apply before concluding that an undertaking agreement is anti-competitive. Unfortunately, there is no basis for thinking that a commitment agreement is anti-competitive if these conditions do not apply. Nor is there a basis for assuming that these conditions are likely to last. The theory must be confronted with the facts, however difficult it may be in some cases, to determine whether an engagement agreement has anti-competitive effects. Third, a seller must have sufficient market power in a binding product to limit competition on a related product.