research topic The name of the firm that I will be discussing is the company Kod

research topic
The name of the firm that I will be discussing is the company Kodak, and I will be focusing my report on the disciplinary action that occurred during this 1921 case. During the 90s film development and photography was quite new, so kodak was a strong competitor in this field as they pushed this product during this time and dominated in this area and defined the industry. During this time kodak was dealt with a anti-trust lawsuit by the federal government, This was due to kodaks ability to indicate in their policy of buying competitors and then forcing given retailers to sign exclusivity agreement’s and their private film. The federal government perceived this to be deceptive, also aside from this accusation kodak was able to develop the Kodachrome which was a technique that cornered customers who wanted to process their film , but this could only be done at a Kodachrome .Due to all of this kodak was forced to shut down the Kodachrome and they were then required to have their film processing technique to third parties, which ultimately opened up the film market to other competitors .Using the disciplinary analysis I would use this to breakdown this case and the many aspects involved in regards to the actions that were taken against kodak.
reseach sources
Kodak appeals to the court to terminate 1921. – masonlec.org. (n.d.). Retrieved March 16, 2022, fromhttp://masonlec.org/site/rte_uploads/files/WrightBaye_Case_Study_kodak_case.pdf
The author explains that Kodak company created a monopoly in the photography business in defilement of segment 2 of the Sherman law. The author says that a decree was made in 1921 by the government to prevent Kodak from hindering merchants in freely vending properties manufactured by competitors. After the decree, the court discovered that Kodak no longer had the power to regulate prices and restrict competition; as a result, the court resolved that the numerous decree limitations should be detached.
Kodak wins the district court ruling. (1994). Supermarket News, 44(22), 34.
The author states that the 1954 decree was about Kodak’s exercise of binding its photographic and photofinishing facilities. The government documented a case to stop this practice by designing a decree to demolish Kodak’s technical supremacy in the photofinishing business. The author stresses that Kodak was obligated to warrant and give technical data to contending photofinishers. The court determined that the decree had attained its crucial resolution of generating a modest photofinishing industry and that Kodak lacked power in the market. The author concludes that Kodak won the court ruling because he was permitted to bind film and photofinishing to improve competition.
United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., 853 F. Supp. 1454 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). Justia Law. (n.d.). Retrieved March 16, 2022, from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/853/1454/1517964/.
The author says that the decrees aimed to rectify Kodak’s domination in the movie and photofinishing industry by hindering Kodak from partaking in the personal tag movie business and vending film with picture dispensation prices involved. Kodak protested that they had fulfilled all the necessities of the 1921 ruling and continued exclusion of retail private tag film is discriminating due to the extreme variations in the market situations and competition.
Penn Law Review – Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2022, from https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3549&context=penn_law_review
The author states that the Penn law permitted producers to uphold trade prices in nations that had earlier endorsed just trade decrees. The amendment provided that a producer could use resale price maintenance only if the goods were in unrestricted and exposed rivalry with other alike properties. The author clarifies that many nations showed even superior lenience to resale price maintenance by successively endorsing nonsigners’ sections. The author concludes that the clause delivered that a producer RPM contract with one merchant assured all other dealers in the nation, irrespective of whether they approved the resale price maintenance.
References
Kodak appeals to court to terminate 1921 .- masonlec.org. (n.d.). Retrieved March 16, 2022, from http://masonlec.org/site/rte_uploads/files/WrightBaye_Case_Study_kodak_case.pdf
United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., 853 F. Supp. 1454 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). Justia Law. (n.d.). Retrieved March 16, 2022, from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/853/1454/1517964/
Penn Law Review – Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2022, from
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3549&context=penn_law_review
please use all sources for paper , and follow all instructions the paper is worth a signifcant amount of my grade.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount