72 Harv. L. Rev. 50 (1958-1959)
The Validity of Tying Arrangements Under the Antitrust Laws

handle is hein.journals/hlr72 and id is 84 raw text is: THE VALIDITY OF TYING ARRANGEMENTS
UNDER THE ANTITRUST LAWS
Donald F. Turner *
Focusing particular attention on Northern Pac. Ry. v. United States,
Professor Turner examines recent tie-in decisions of the Supreme
Court. Within the framework of these cases, he analyzes the con-
flicting interests at stake and sets forth criteria to determine when
a per se rule should be applied to tying arrangements which cover a
substantial amount of commerce.
N Northern Pac. Ry. v. United States,1 the Supreme Court has
again dealt harshly under the antitrust laws with arrangements
tying the sale of one product to the sale or lease of another. The
railroad, in dislosing of its extensive land-grant holdings by sale
and lease, had inserted preferential routing clauses in many of
the contracts. These clauses compelled the grantee or lessee to use
Northern Pacific lines in transporting, to destinations served by
those lines, all commodities produced or manufactured on the
land, provided that Northern's rates, or rates and service, matched
those of competing carriers. The Government obtained summary
judgment in the district court that the clauses were unlawful re-
straints of trade under section i of the Sherman Act.' The Su-
preme Court, dividing five to three, affirmed.
This is the second leading tie-in case in a row to split the Court.
The first was Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States,'
in which the majority, after restating the law on tying arrange-
ments, held that a tie-in of morning and afternoon newspaper
advertising space was not illegal because the tied products were
identical, and because there was no market dominance in the tying
product. The features common to both cases are (i) that the
tying products - the products to which other products or services
were tied - were unpatented; and (2) that the products involyed
- land and services - apparently did not come within the terms
* Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. A.B., Northwestern, 1941; Ph.D.,
Harvard, 1947; LL.B., Yale, ig5o.
'356 U.S. ' (1958).
2 United States v. Northern Pac. Ry., 142 F. Supp. 679 (W.D. Wash. 1956).
345 U.S. 594 (1953).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?