Iowa Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, Per Se Violation Tying Agreement — Defense Of Justification In Iowa, jury instructions play a crucial role in guiding jurors on the law applicable to a specific case. One such instruction provided by the Iowa court system is Iowa Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 Section 1, which pertains to the defense of justification in cases involving per se violation tying agreements. Here is a detailed description of this instruction, along with an overview of the different types of tying agreement cases covered within it. Section 1 of Iowa Jury Instruction — 3.3.2 addresses the defense of justification in per se violation tying agreement cases. A tying agreement refers to a situation where a party conditions the sale of a product or service (the tying product) on the buyer's agreement to purchase a separate product or service (the tied product) as well. Per se violation means that the tying agreement is inherently anti-competitive and illegal under the law. The instruction begins by stating that the defendant may raise a defense of justification by arguing that their tying agreement was necessary or supported by legitimate business justifications. Justification can be established if the defendant proves that their agreement resulted in some pro-competitive benefits that outweighed any anti-competitive harm caused by the tying arrangement. Under this instruction, there are various types of tying agreement cases that may arise: 1. Product Tying: This occurs when a seller forces buyers to purchase a particular product as a condition for obtaining another desired product. For example, if a car manufacturer requires customers to purchase an expensive add-on package (the tied product) in order to buy a specific vehicle model (the tying product), it could potentially be a per se violation. 2. Price Tying: In this type of tying agreement, a seller imposes a condition that the buyer must purchase a product at an inflated or non-competitive price (the tying product) as a prerequisite for purchasing a different product (the tied product). For instance, if a software company mandates the purchase of an overpriced software license (the tying product) to access necessary updates or patches (the tied product), it may constitute a per se violation. 3. Service Tying: This refers to tying agreements where a seller imposes a condition that buyers must use their services (the tying product) along with purchasing a separate product (the tied product). For example, if a telecommunications company requires customers to use its internet service (the tying product) when they purchase a particular streaming device (the tied product), it could potentially be a per se violation. It is important to note that this Iowa jury instruction is specific to per se violation tying agreement cases and the defense of justification that defendants may raise. Different jury instructions may apply in cases involving other types of anti-competitive conduct or justifications.