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."

12 of 544 comments (clear)

  1. Let me guess... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a 5-4 decision by the US Supreme Court Do we need to be told who voted each way?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Let me guess... by omeomi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. The supreme court now splits nicely down party lines for every vote.

      Yep, isn't it great that the one branch of government that should be completely apolitical has just become yet another neoconservative-controlled institution?

    2. Re:Let me guess... by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Americans: I feel sorry for you.

      We'll live. The U.S. Supreme Court has done a lot of good, especially in reigning in the worst excesses of the legislature, and one result of an independent judiciary is sometimes they're going to do things you don't like.

      I feel sorrier for the people in those countries where the courts simply apply the law, and are never allowed to challenge it.

    3. Re:Let me guess... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe those Nader voters had principles?

      Maybe instead of directing anger towards the few voters that actually exercised free will, you should instead point it towards (a) the sheep that stick to party lines, and (b) the fucked up voting process that forces you to vote for 'who you think can actually win' rather than who you actually want to represent you.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    4. Re:Let me guess... by tambo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      So, having read that summary, why the hell does anyone think there is anything wrong with that decision?

      Because the rule will prompt businesses of all kinds to set up price floors, that's why.

      By creating a "balancing test," the Court has changed the operative rule from "don't set price floors under any circumstances" to "you can go ahead and set price floors, so long as you can create a facade of competitiveness in case the DOJ brings an antitrust violation against you."

      The sad reality is that the DOJ's antitrust division is toothless. It does nothing. Its last victory was in 1982, against the Ma Bell cartel. It has fought one significant case since then, against Microsoft, and it got whipped. Even clear-cut, admitted perpetrators of antitrust activities get off with a slap on the wrist (Samsung was caught red-handed in DRAM price fixing, and was fined $90MM... even though its annual *profits* are $3,000MM.)

      So what has this rule done? It's shifted business from a "we can't, we'll get slapped" stance to a "we're gonna go ahead and do it - prove us wrong, we dare ya!" stance. Prepare to see every good in America sold at the same price through all outlets. This sucks.

      - David Stein

      --
      Computer over. Virus = very yes.
  2. Please explain. by x_MeRLiN_x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is this tagged slownewsday? Is this not something that will in theory affect all internet shoppers?

    1. Re:Please explain. by mpapet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's hardly the case this is a new development.

      The way equipment vendors of all kinds have gotten around the previously illegal activity was to set up "Authorized Dealer" agreements. Most corporations at the top of their respective food chains use them. Authorized dealers have pricing sent to them. Pricing includes regular, msrp, and promotional pricing. Big retailers normally do deals above and beyond those offered by the brand in question thereby crushing the small retailer.

      Look at Apple as an example. Every retailer's price is about the same except for the unauthorized dealer that got some units somehow.

      Just because the Supreme Court handed down a decision some people don't like doesn't mean it's unchanging. That's what the legislature is for. That's what your democratically elected officials are for.

      Oh wait, most Americans don't vote so, they got exactly what they put in. If you are that angry, get involved.

      --
      http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  3. competition on quality and service, not price by coyote-san · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's an argument that this is actually PRO-consumer since it makes it possible for businesses to compete on the basis of quality and service instead of being forced to compete on price alone. Price-only competition is surprisingly corrosive since there really is no middle ground on many things -- even if you're willing to pay a 50% markup for quality (and it really is cheaper to pay 50% more if the product lasts twice as long) there's not enough other people to make it economically viable in most cases. Look at t-shirts. You have really cheap junk at Walmart, shirts from other stores that can't charge much more than Walmart so their quality has also suffered, and the $100 designer shirts. No middle ground with good fabric but no handstitching.

    I'm not sure I buy this argument, no pun intended, but the race to the bottom has got to stop. I know it's in Walmart's interest that I need to buy a new tv every two years, but it's not in mine.

    (Sidenote: I've never entered Walmart/Sam's Club due to this policy and the way they mistreat their employees. Costco, baby, Costco!)

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  4. Re:Boo Conservative-Majority Supreme Court... by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My only thought when I saw this was, "Jesus F. Christ, they did it *again* already?"

    Let's look at this week (which isn't even over yet).

      * Can't sue the government for using your money to fund religious groups, effectively overturning the 1968 precident allowing it -- all under the loophole that it wasn't spending specifically approved by congress, but by the executive branch via funding granted by the congress.
      * Corporate ads supporting candidates are free speech, and are protected unless "the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."
      * "Bong Hits For Jesus" isn't free speech, and isn't protected (meaning that schools can now kick people out for saying almost anything that the school doesn't like).
      * Efforts to desegregate schools can't look at the race of students. In other words, while a school can't officially be "whites only", it effectively can't be stopped from actually being whites only because the district can't consider race in school assignment and, more critically -- if you go by the majority's wording -- cannot even be monitored to know if they're unofficially skewing a school towards racial segregation. All this despite racial integration proving to be one of the few things in education that significantly improves the average academic scores of an area without a significant increase in funding.

    And now, this -- effectively saying, "welcome back, collusion" and gutting the effectiveness of antitrust legislation.

    Depressing, depressing.

    (I think I missed one of the frustrating early-week ones, too)

    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  5. Re:No choice? by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You actually hit on the right answer.

    This is affecting small groups that cannot negotiate prices directly and can harm them on BEHALF of wal-mart.

    Wal-Mart can demand a lower price, something they already do, but smaller groups cannot demand lower prices.

    This makes it so that everyone just goes to Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart now has the ability to severely undercut prices while smaller, local groups have to sell them at high prices or not sell them at all. At worse they will even be forced to keep stock that they cannot return because they cannot sell the stock. That is the reason you have sale prices in the first place, it is to get rid of stock that you can't sell at the regular price.

    Now they will just have to burn the stuff or something, not sure exactly, but in the end the company that sold it to them got their money already.

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
  6. Cuts out savings if you know what you want. by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's all well and good if there are a lot of products on the market that meet your demands, but if your demands are enough that you already know which product you want, this seriously undercuts your ability to save money.

    For example, a few years ago, I decided on a specific LCD HDTV (an extravagant purchase that I still regret to this day). At the time, MSRP for the set was $8999. All retail outlets sold it for that price. However, I was able to go online and buy it for only $5499. Had the price floor been set at MSRP or something else favorable to the big retailers, I could've lost thousands of dollars in the purchase.

    As an internet shopper, I am pleased by this decision because this will also mean the end of the stupid bargain/rebate/shoparound/missed discount remorse routine.

    Yeah, well to nuts to that, my friend. I'd rather know that I missed out on the best deal possible than to know that I never had the opportunity to avoid getting gouged because of legalized price fixing. Besides, price comparison search engines will let you easily get pretty close to the best possible prices out there if you look right. Froogle exists for a reason.

    Also, if you're going to argue that the existence of alternate products makes this irrelevant, then you should consider that having to compare alternate products negates the advantage of not having to look around for the best discount. I seriously can't believe, though, that you'd rather everyone be gouged than you feel the remorse of missing out on a sale.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  7. Re:An Original Idea! by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry. Doesn't work that way in the real world. Those cheap t-shirts they sell at Wal-Mart are often not the same ones you buy in another store, for one thing. Thus, this ruling has little impact on their products. In addition to often carrying products by different manufacturers, they also quite frequently get special sourcing of custom, cost-reduced versions of products (particularly in electronics). Such products won't be affected in any way.

    Even ignoring that, though, the Wal-Mart chains of the world, however, who have huge buying power, will still be able to do what they do now: say "You don't like it, fine. We're not carrying your product." Most manufacturers can't cope with the sudden drop of revenue when this occurs, and basically keel over and die. Thus, Wal-Mart is pretty much insulated from strong-arm tactics by nearly all manufacturers.

    The people this will hurt most, contrary to the opinion of five SCOTUS justices, are the mom and pop shops. Now, the manufacturers will be able to tell those stores that they have to meet a minimum price while other manufacturers of similar products are still caving to Wal-Mart's price demands. The result will be that the disparity between Wal-Mart prices and prices at smaller stores will increase, driving those smaller stores even more quickly out of business.

    There is simply no way to not see this as a serious blow to consumers.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.