In the case of United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Affiliates, 1989, the Supreme Court examined whether Goodyear had violated antitrust laws by tying sales of its tires to sales of its retreading equipment and supplies. The government argued that this practice was anti-competitive as it forced customers who wanted to buy Goodyear's new tires also to purchase their retreading services. However, the court ruled in favor of Goodyear stating that there was no violation because buyers were not coerced into purchasing both products together; they could buy them separately if they wished. Furthermore, it found no evidence showing a substantial amount of commerce being restrained due to this alleged tie-in arrangement which is necessary for an antitrust violation claim under Sherman Act Section 1 or Clayton Act Section 3.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Affiliates argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on foreign sales corporations (FSCs) was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this tax violated the Export Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from imposing taxes or duties on exports. They contended that FSCs are essentially exporters and therefore should be exempt from such taxation under this clause. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes an "export," arguing for a broader definition than just physical goods being shipped overseas - one that would include transactions conducted by FSCs as well. Finally, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on American businesses competing in global markets due to increased financial burdens caused by these taxes.