a software firm’s decisions to sell multiple functionalities as a package should be “conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use.” N. Pac. Ry., 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S.Ct. 514 (emphasis added). Nor have we found much insight into software integration among the decisions of lower federal courts. Most tying cases in the computer industry involve bundling with hardware. See, e.g., Digital Equip. Corp. v. Uniq Digital Techs., Inc., 73 F.3d 756, 761 (7th Cir.1996) (Easterbrook, J.) (rejecting with little discussion the notion that bundling of OS with a computer is a tie of two separate products); Datagate, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 941 F.2d 864, 870 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Digidyne Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 734 F.2d
holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant conditioned its software on purchase of its hardware was sufficient to survive summary judgment holding without discussing the plaintiffs burden of persuasion that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment holding that appellant had submitted sufficient evidence of racebased retaliation to survive summary judgment on his  1981 claim holding that an affidavit  consisting entirely of inadmissible hearsay is not sufficient to survive summary judgment holding that a fourmonth interval was sufficient to support an allegation of a causal connection strong enough to survive a summary judgment motion