for substitutes of the tied good. See, e.g., Int’l Salt, 332 U.S. at 397-98, 68 S.Ct. 12; IBM, 298 U.S. at 138-40, 56 S.Ct. 701. Here Microsoft argues that IE and Windows are an integrated physical product and that the bundling of IE APIs with Windows makes the latter a better applications platform for third-party software. It is unclear how the benefits from IE APIs could be achieved by quality standards for different browser manufacturers. We do not pass judgment on Microsoft’s claims regarding the benefits from integration of its APIs. We merely note that these and other novel, purported efficiencies suggest that judicial “experience” provides little basis for believing that, “because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming 6, 1341-17 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Cal. Computer Prods., 613 F.2d at 743-44
holding that for a section 10b violation the sec must prove that the defendant in connection with the purchase or sale of securities made a materially false statement or omitted a material fact with scienter and that the plaintiffs reliance on the defendants action caused injury to the plaintiff holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the  instrument holding that defendants conditioning the sale of its os on the purchase of its cpu constitutes a per se tying violation holding that a pledge is a sale and purchase of a security under  10b holding that section 10b violation occurs on date of alleged misrepresentation not the date of the sale or purchase of securities