With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". their own machines suggests that the demand for parts can be separated from the demand for service. Kodak does not dispute appellants’ claim that some equipment owners have (perhaps surreptitiously) bought service from ISOs and parts from Kodak. Nor does Kodak dispute appellants claim that other equipment owners would have contracted with ISOs for service if they could have obtained parts separately. Cf. Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell, 803 F.2d 1473, 1480 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986) (applying California law) (noting that for some products, such as automobiles, the parts market is distinct from the service market), modified 810 F.2d 1517 (9th Cir.1987); Digidyne Corp. v. Data General Corp., 734 F.2d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 908, 105 S.Ct. 3534, 87 L.Ed.2d 657 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Having established that a tying arrangement

A: holding that separate tax identity existed where entity engaged in its own business ventures separate from its stockholder and in independent legal actions against third parties
B: holding ripe for review advisory guidelines for processing freedom of information act requests
C: holding no defamation existed
D: holding that separate markets existed for computer central processing unit and computer operating system
D.