In the case of Eastman Kodak Company v. Image Technical Services, Inc., et al., 1991, independent service organizations (ISOs) sued Kodak for monopolistic practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The ISOs alleged that Kodak had unlawfully tied the sale of its photocopier parts to its own servicing contracts and refused to sell parts to third-party repair companies or end users who used these independent services. This effectively forced customers into using only Kodak's maintenance services due to lack of access to necessary proprietary parts from other sources. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ISOs stating that a company could be held liable for anti-competitive behavior even if it did not have a monopoly in the overall market but merely within an aftermarket related specifically to their product - in this case, replacement parts and servicing for Kodak equipment.

In the dissenting opinion for Eastman Kodak Company v. Image Technical Services, Inc., Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow a claim of monopolization based on tying arrangements was inconsistent with previous case law and economic theory. He contended that it is not inherently anti-competitive for a company to bundle its products or services together, as long as consumers have other options available in the market. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that Kodak had sufficient market power to control prices or exclude competition simply because it had a large share of parts sales for its own equipment. In his view, this did not constitute monopoly power under antitrust laws since customers could choose other brands of photocopiers if they found Kodak's practices objectionable.