Def.'s Mot. to Strike ΒΆ 6. In support, Defendant cites decisions of the Second Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, and a Kentucky district court. Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. to Strike 5-6 (citing Lipsky v Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1976); Data Processing Fin. & Gen. Corp. v. IBM, 430 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1970) (per curiam); and Hyland v. Homeservices of Am. Inc., No. 3:05-cv-612-R, 2007 WL 1959157 (W.D. Ky. June 28, 2007)). As Plaintiff succinctly observes, however, Defendant's argument is foreclosed by Sixth Circuit precedent. Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. 6-7 (citing United States v. Cohen, 946 F.2d 430 (6th Cir. 1991)).
This effect is similar to that caused by IBM's past practices of offering tabulating and computer equipment only for lease and not for sale. These practices also spawned antitrust litigation, resulting in a 1935 injunction and a 1956 consent decree. See Control Data Corp. v. IBM Corp., 306 F. Supp. 839 (D.Minn. 1969), aff'd, 430 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1970). We also disagree with the district court's view that AMI admitted that leasing companies "compete with IBM and constrain IBM's ability to set prices or exclude competition in the market for new large scale main frame computers."