https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168716 A monopolist may face Section 2 liability for exclusionary refusal to deal under ordinary antitrust principles, and the essential facilities doctrine is not the sole basis for such claims. The text also treats intellectual property ownership as a presumptively valid business justification, but one that can be rebutted by pretext or anticompetitive use. It further explains that market definition may turn on commercial realities, including access to all parts needed to compete in downstream service markets, and that monopoly power and entry barriers may be shown by control of designs, tools, patents, brand power, and contractual restraints. Damages and injunctive relief require evidentiary support and tailoring to lawful intellectual property interests. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2015 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168716 A monopolist may face Section 2 liability for exclusionary refusal to deal under ordinary antitrust principles, and the essential facilities doctrine is not the sole basis for such claims. The text also treats intellectual property ownership as a presumptively valid business justification, but one that can be rebutted by pretext or anticompetitive use. It further explains that market definition may turn on commercial realities, including access to all parts needed to compete in downstream service markets, and that monopoly power and entry barriers may be shown by control of designs, tools, patents, brand power, and contractual restraints. Damages and injunctive relief require evidentiary support and tailoring to lawful intellectual property interests. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168716