Question

If Polaroid wanted damages against Kodak for infringing on its instant development film process, and the courts found a high positive cross elasticity between purchases of Polaroid instant film and 35mm regular film, would that have strengthened or weakened Polaroid's claim against Kodak?

Answer 1

Kodak's concern for the 16 million owners of its cameras is well taken. However, as Polaroid has pointed out, those cameras carried an implied warranty to the purchasing public that they were free from infringement. In Polaroid's words, that fact having been disproved in this action, it now properly falls upon Kodak to make whole any customer who complains. A large positive cross elasticity shows a very strong substitute relationship. So if Polaroid is loosing sales then its affecting not only the sale of Kodak film but also to 35mm film. So they can not claim that all lost sales are happening because of Kodak's infringement and which reduces the damages it can claim.

And not only will an injunction injure Kodak's customers and goodwill but it will also cause a major disruption of its business.