in order to establish a § 1 violation”); Bepco, 106 F.Supp.2d at 828 (21.5 percent and 18.5 percent “fall short of any value presumed to be substantial and lie on the margin of what is considered to be significant”); R.J. Reynolds, 199 F.Supp.2d at 387-88, 391-92 (noting that the lowest coverage courts and commentators have found significant is 20 percent and that courts have found agreements covering up to 50 percent of the market to not be substantial). . Because the Project Avalanche agreements are not exclusive or otherwise anticompetitive, to survive summary judgment on Count VI Novell must raise a genuine issue about whether the per system and minimum purchase agreements between Microsoft and OEMs resulted in substantial foreclosure. But cf. R.J. Reynolds, 199 F.Supp.2d at 387-88 (<HOLDING>). However, Novell has not presented evidence
holding that phillip morris offering retailers discounts in exchange for advantageous advertising space was not exclusive dealing but nonetheless using the substantial foreclosure analysis typically used in exclusive dealing cases recognizing that course of dealing may establish limitation of damages as part of parties bargain in fact but finding record was devoid of any evidence to establish a prior course of dealing between parties holding that the trial court erred by imposing a duty of good faith on seattlefirst in relation to a course of dealing when that course of dealing conflicted with the express terms of the contract holding that claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing was precluded but only because there was not an express agreement between the parties holding anonymous tip that someone at the residence was dealing drugs did not amount to anything the tip was never substantiated and none of the occupants were ever charged with drug dealing