The attachment of Apple products is an example of a recently controversial commercial link. When Apple released the iPhone on June 29, 2007, it was sold exclusively with AT-T (formerly Cingular) contracts in the United States.  To force this exclusivity, Apple used some kind of software lock that made the phone not working on any network other than AT-Ts.  As part of the cooking concept, any user who tried to unlock or abuse the locking software risked rendering their iPhone permanently unusable.  This has caused complaints to many consumers because they were forced to pay an additional $175 for early termination if they wanted to safely unlock the device for use on another medium.  Other companies such as Google have complained that the link promotes wireless service with closed access.  [aborted verification] Many challenged the legality of the agreement and, in October 2007, a class action was brought against Apple, claiming that its exclusive agreement with AT-T was contrary to California`s antitrust laws.  The complaint was filed by Damian R. Fernandez`s law firm on behalf of Timothy P. Smith, based in California, and eventually attempted to sue Apple to prevent it from selling iPhones with any type of software blocking.  Some undertaking agreements are unlawful in the United States, both under the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act.  A contract of engagement is defined as “an agreement of one party to sell a product, but only on the condition that the buyer purchases another product (or is bound) or at least accepts that he does not purchase the product from another supplier.”  Engagement can be the activity of several companies as well as the work of a company.
The success of a claim of commitment generally requires proof of four elements: (1) These are two distinct products or services; 2. The purchase of the binding product depends on the additional purchase of the related product; (3) the seller has sufficient power in the binding product market; (4) A significant portion of intergovernmental trade in the related products market is affected.  An agreement in which the seller determines the sale of a product (the “binding” product) on the buyer`s consent to the purchase of a separate product (the “linked” product) by the seller. Alternatively, it is also considered a liaison agreement if the seller conditions the sale of the product related to the buyer`s agreement not to buy the product related to another seller. See Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 541 (1992). In accordance with C.C.I.`s order, an agreement of commitment is entered into when a seller, by a contractual or technological requirement, conditions the sale or lease of a product or service at the customer`s agreement to take over a second product or service in the order, C.C.I. acknowledges that the links are not contrary to the competition itself. , because “the economic literature indicates that there are pro-competitive reasons for product fixing.
These include the benefits of assembly, improving quality and eliminating price inefficiencies. It therefore seems clear that C.C.I. essentially recognizes that integrations must be treated in a reason-led approach, as is the case with regulatory regulation. 3 (4) of the law. Subsequently, C.C.I. very categorically identifies the “necessary and essential conditions” for the “anti-competitive link” that is: (1) the presence of two distinct products or services that may be linked; (2) In order to significantly restrict competition procedures in the market for their product, the seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the binding product (3) The coupling agreement must affect a significant volume of trade, anti-competitive agreements are negative or harmful, as they have effects on competition in the market.