Use the excerpt from U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. to answer the question.

Question

"As we have already noted, the vast majority of academic literature recognizes that a patent does not necessarily confer market power. Similarly, while price discrimination may provide evidence of market power, particularly if buttressed by evidence that the patentee has charged an above-market price for the tied package, it is generally recognized that it also occurs in fully competitive markets...We are not persuaded that the combination of these two factors should give rise to a presumption of market power when neither is sufficient to do so standing alone. Rather, the lesson to be learned from International Salt and the academic commentary is the same: Many tying arrangements, even those involving patents and requirements ties, are fully consistent with a free, competitive market... Congress, the antitrust enforcement agencies, and most economists have all reached the conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee. Today, we reach the same conclusion, and therefore hold that, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product....
Which argument made by the Supreme Court regarding patents is the most appropriate?
(1 point)
• Society continues to benefit from competitive pricing despite claims that a patent conferred an unfair market advantage on a business.
• A company potentially locked the intellectual property rights of an idea or an invention and precluded others from taking that idea and creating fairer prices for society.
• The company used patents as weapons against other businesses by keeping prices artificially high in the market.
• The company inhibited economic progress and national power by artificially inflating prices.

Answer 1

The most appropriate argument made by the Supreme Court regarding patents from the provided excerpt is:

• Society continues to benefit from competitive pricing despite claims that a patent conferred an unfair market advantage on a business.

This choice aligns with the court's conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power and that many tying arrangements are consistent with competitive markets. The emphasis on competition implies that patents do not inherently lead to unfair pricing outcomes.