## Facts

- A.I. Root Co. used MAI’s BOSS operating software, which was necessary to run certain Basic Four computer equipment and support applications.
- Root sought to upgrade its systems and, instead of buying a new MAI computer from Computer/Dynamics, Inc. (MAI’s authorized dealer), purchased a used Basic Four computer from another seller.
- Root obtained a BOSS software package through the used-computer seller but was dissatisfied with its configuration and asked CDI to reconfigure BOSS.
- CDI stated it would not reconfigure the software unless Root (1) executed MAI’s standard license agreements for all MAI software Root possessed and (2) agreed to purchase all future programming services from CDI.
- Root refused those conditions and replaced the MAI system by purchasing an IBM computer and non-MAI software.
- Root sued CDI and MAI under § 1 of the Sherman Act, alleging an unlawful tying arrangement and a group boycott/concerted refusal to deal.

## Issues

1. Whether MAI’s copyright in BOSS, without more, established the market power required to support a § 1 tying claim.
2. Whether defendants’ refusal to reconfigure BOSS unless Root accepted MAI’s license terms and service conditions constituted a per se unlawful group boycott or an unreasonable restraint of trade.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for CDI and MAI.
- The court held that a copyright in the alleged tying product did not, by itself, establish antitrust market power.
- Given MAI’s small market share and the availability of alternatives (as shown by Root’s switch to IBM), Root failed to raise a triable issue of coercion or sufficient economic power in the tying product.
- The court rejected the group-boycott theory, treating the conduct as a vertical supplier–dealer licensing/service dispute lacking evidence of market-wide exclusion or anticompetitive effect.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1 tying claim requires proof that the seller has sufficient economic power in the tying product to restrain competition in the tied market and that a not insubstantial volume of commerce is affected.
- Intellectual property rights (including copyrights) do not automatically confer antitrust market power; plaintiffs must show substantial market share or other evidence of actual economic power (e.g., uniqueness forcing buyer acceptance).
- A buyer’s ability to refuse the package and switch to alternative products is evidence against coercion and against an inference of market power.
- Per se group-boycott treatment is limited to classic exclusionary boycotts; vertical refusals tied to enforcement of licensing terms generally require proof of anticompetitive effects under a rule-of-reason framework.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment because Root failed to show that BOSS’s copyright translated into market power or coercion necessary for an illegal tie, and failed to show that defendants’ license-based refusal to provide reconfiguration/services amounted to an unlawful group boycott or otherwise unreasonable restraint of trade.


A.I. Root Co. v. Computer/Dynamics, Inc., 806 F.2d 673 (6th Cir. 1986)