Slashdot Mirror
Ban On Price Floors Abandoned, Internet Prices May Rise
paro12 and i_like_spam informed us of a 5-4 decision by the US Supreme Court which abandons a 96-year-old ban on manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products. The Slashdot community discussed the issue when the case was argued back in March. The ruling means that anti-competitive complaints based on price-fixing will have to be argued case-by-case and will be harder to prove. Discounts and discounters in all venues may be under pressure, with internet sales possibly the hardest hit. "Importantly, this case points a dagger at the heart of the most consumer-friendly aspects of the Internet. The Internet has shifted power to the consumer in two ways. First, it allows consumers to search for and gather information in a cost-effective, efficient manner. Second, it provides a low-cost means of retailing, making it easy for discounters to offer products to the public. This combination squeezes excess profits and inefficiencies out of product prices. Retail price maintenance seeks to short circuit this extremely consumer friendly process. By setting minimum prices, manufacturers can build in excess margins for themselves and for their favored retailers -- prices that consumers have no choice but to pay."
Justice Breyer wrote the dissent. Here's a piece: That change, other things being equal, may enable (and motivate) more retailers, accounting for a greater percentage of total retail sales volume, to seek resale price maintenance, thereby making it more difficult for price-cutting competitors (perhaps internet retailers) to obtain market share.
That was _the_ eminent domain decision. When that decision was made the Court was weighted to the left. It decided that the gov't can take your land and sell it to the highest bidder in the interest of collecting higher taxes.
Basically, it allowed large developers to lower their land acquisition costs. If you want too much for your little slice of heaven, the guys with guns will come and take it away. An erosion of one of the most basic rights in Western civilization.
Marbury v. Madison. The Chief Justice was a Federalist who served a few days under a Federalist president and basically up until 1850 or so under non-Federalists.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I Dont feel sorry for some European nations (Im not even going to name them) despite the fact people die waiting to see a doctor there its their health care system and for whatever reason they like what they got.
You do realize that the US ranks 45th in the world in terms of life expectancy, right below Saint Helena and right above Cyprus, right? The average life expectancy in Cuba, an impoverished nation which is under an embargo that covers much medical technology is only one year less than that in the US, the wealthiest nation on the planet. Meanwhile, we spend twice as much as anyone else for this worse care. Check out all of the cited studies linked from that page, too.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
First of all, this only said that there are some cases where vertical price restraints are legal. It did not say that they're all legal. In fact, the opinion listed several situations where they're almost certainly illegal.
For the most part, manufacturers don't want to impose price maintenance -- they BENEFIT when their dealers sell at low prices. Why? Well, here's an example: say Apple sells iPods to dealers for $100, sets a retail price of $200, and 5 people buy it. Apple now has $500. Let's say they don't set a retail price, and (because of competition), the retail price stabilizes at $130, and 7 people buy it at the lower price. Apple now has $700. Which one is better for Apple? Both manufacturers and consumers want dealers to make as little profit as they can.
Here's an example why vertical price restraints should not all be illegal: Suppose that you build sailboats, which are somewhat complicated, not many people know a lot about them, and there are a lot of first-time buyers. Your dealers, then, spend a lot of time and money educating the customers, maintaining showrooms, teaching "what to know before you buy your boat" classes, and so on. These things are very expensive, and consumers benefit by having them. The problem, though, is that if one of your dealers does all the education, and another doesn't, the second one will undercut the first one's prices. As a result, customers will go to the first dealer, look at the boats and take the classes, then go buy the cheap boat from the second dealer. Eventually, the first dealer either goes out of business or just stops offering all those extra services. If the manufacturer can set a minimum retail price, he can stop the second dealer from doing this free-riding. Now, the two dealers are still competing with each other, but they're doing it on something other than price -- they're doing it on service. So, consumers may get longer dealer warranties, or dealers may offer free storage or maintenance.
We can all read the SCOTUS decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-48 0.pdf
What it says is not all price flooring is automatically illegal (per se). If the pricing is used to generate services or differentiate the product within a market to be competitive then why not.
What SCOTUS is arguing is that price flooring needs to be decided on it's merits (rule of reason). They say, it is still illegal to have price flooring within a manufacturing cabal. It is also illegal to have price flooring for a monopoly (as if that makes any difference). Generally price flooring is illegal if it is anticompetitive and legal of it is pro-competive.
As to the sale of handbags, anyone can make a handbag and thousands do. In this case the manufacturer had floor pricing to maintain marketing material and consumer cache. This manufacturer wanted a small botique feel to the sale of their products and not a Walmart experience. The retailer in question just wanted to boost sales by under cutting smaller shops and make their margin on volume. The retailer had signed agreements to price floors.
In this case, I too favor the manufacturer. SCOTUS has not thrown out the Sherman act, but merely noted that price flooring in certain circumstances can be OK. I'll still buy handbags at WallyWorld.
Granular decision making: Good
machinator omnis sine licentia
I'm trying to figure out if anyone posting (or the summary writer) actually read the decision?
To summarize:
Prior to this decision, any price floor set by a manufactorer was automatically considered a violation of anti-trust laws designed to increase competition.
Apparently there are some specific situations where a price floor would lead to more competition, not less. The specific cases in question included some of those situations. The argument was that since they led to more competition, not less competition, they didn't violate the relevent anti-trust laws.
Therefore the court took another look and said "You're right, there are some specific situations where a price floor wouldn't violate the law against being anti-competitive, since in those situations it actually leads to more competition". As a result, you may now set a price floor and not have the Feds come after you as long as you are able to show a federal judge that your price floor actually leads to more competition, not less.
If your price floor leads to less competition, then you still can do it as it's still a violations of the relevent anti-trust laws designed to encourage more competition.
So, having read that summary, why the hell does anyone think there is anything wrong with that decision? True, now people who can justify their price floor on more competition grounds might have to defend that in court, but how is that worse than those same people being not able to encourage competition that way in the first place?
For specifics on exactly how a price floor may in rare cases lead to more competition, please read the actual court briefs and decision.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Another myth. Malpractice suits account for 0.46% of our total healthcare expenditures. An interesting observation is that Canada, for example, actually pays out more to plaintiffs than US courts do.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."