An upcoming federal trial will decide how much General Electric must pay for stymying competition in the repair market for its equipment. A jury previously awarded plaintiffs tens of millions of dollars.
A repair advocate said the dispute, which involves repair and resale of anesthesia gas machines, is relevant to the "right to repair" movement for consumer electronics.
"This case proves that repair monopolies are real, that manufacturers do create illegal tying agreements, and that antitrust law can restore competition to the marketplace," said Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the nonprofit group The Repair Association.
The case is Red Lion Medical Safety et al. v. General Electric Company et al. It was filed in March 2015 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Seventeen companies that maintain, repair and refurbish GE anesthesia machines sued GE and Alpha Source, GE's sole distributor of parts for the machines. Some of the plaintiffs sell refurbished machines. In their lawsuit, they claimed the defendants violated federal antitrust laws by making it difficult or impossible for the independent service companies to maintain and repair GE machines. Specifically, they alleged GE's parts policy, training policy, software update policy and marketing communications violated the Sherman Act.
GE has about 80 percent of the U.S. market for anesthesia machines, according to the plaintiffs' complaint.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
An upcoming federal trial will decide how much General Electric must pay for stymying competition in the repair market for its equipment. A jury previously awarded plaintiffs tens of millions of dollars.
A repair advocate said the dispute, which involves repair and resale of anesthesia gas machines, is relevant to the "right to repair" movement for consumer electronics.
"This case proves that repair monopolies are real, that manufacturers do create illegal tying agreements, and that antitrust law can restore competition to the marketplace," said Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the nonprofit group The Repair Association.
The case is Red Lion Medical Safety et al. v. General Electric Company et al. It was filed in March 2015 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Seventeen companies that maintain, repair and refurbish GE anesthesia machines sued GE and Alpha Source, GE's sole distributor of parts for the machines. Some of the plaintiffs sell refurbished machines. In their lawsuit, they claimed the defendants violated federal antitrust laws by making it difficult or impossible for the independent service companies to maintain and repair GE machines. Specifically, they alleged GE's parts policy, training policy, software update policy and marketing communications violated the Sherman Act.
GE has about 80 percent of the U.S. market for anesthesia machines, according to the plaintiffs' complaint.
An upcoming federal trial will decide how much General Electric must pay for stymying competition in the repair market for its equipment. A jury previously awarded plaintiffs tens of millions of dollars.
A repair advocate said the dispute, which involves repair and resale of anesthesia gas machines, is relevant to the "right to repair" movement for consumer electronics.
"This case proves that repair monopolies are real, that manufacturers do create illegal tying agreements, and that antitrust law can restore competition to the marketplace," said Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of the nonprofit group The Repair Association.
The case is Red Lion Medical Safety et al. v. General Electric Company et al. It was filed in March 2015 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Seventeen companies that maintain, repair and refurbish GE anesthesia machines sued GE and Alpha Source, GE's sole distributor of parts for the machines. Some of the plaintiffs sell refurbished machines. In their lawsuit, they claimed the defendants violated federal antitrust laws by making it difficult or impossible for the independent service companies to maintain and repair GE machines. Specifically, they alleged GE's parts policy, training policy, software update policy and marketing communications violated the Sherman Act.
GE has about 80 percent of the U.S. market for anesthesia machines, according to the plaintiffs' complaint.
Categories