Price fixing can be used to drive prices down as well. Think of it this way, if prices are driven down below an acceptable profit margin, then businesses will be driven out of a particular market. Thus, if a firm can hold out long enough (i.e. sustain the lost), all of it's competitors will be driven bankrupt or leave the market. And what you are left with is a monopoly.
Classic antitrust doctrine. Vanderbilt used this strategy a bunch in the 19th century (drove out shipping competitors first, then used the tactic to drive out RR competitors). Look up the terms "predatory pricing" and "raising rival's costs" - allegations in the MS antitrust trial.
Of the various weaknesses to pick at in this suit, the inappropriate use of the term "price fixing" is not one of them.
Juries do not establish legal precedent, judges do. Quite simply this is b/c the role of the judge is to lay down the legal framework, and the role of the jury is to decide how credible the evidence presented is and then apply that evidence to the legal framework provided by the judge.
When was the last time you saw a judge cite a jury's opinion as a basis for legal precedent? Or, for that matter, when was the last time you saw a jury-written opinion?
Slashdot Mirror
Price fixing can be used to drive prices down as well. Think of it this way, if prices are driven down below an acceptable profit margin, then businesses will be driven out of a particular market. Thus, if a firm can hold out long enough (i.e. sustain the lost), all of it's competitors will be driven bankrupt or leave the market. And what you are left with is a monopoly.
Classic antitrust doctrine. Vanderbilt used this strategy a bunch in the 19th century (drove out shipping competitors first, then used the tactic to drive out RR competitors). Look up the terms "predatory pricing" and "raising rival's costs" - allegations in the MS antitrust trial.
Of the various weaknesses to pick at in this suit, the inappropriate use of the term "price fixing" is not one of them.
Juries do not establish legal precedent, judges do. Quite simply this is b/c the role of the judge is to lay down the legal framework, and the role of the jury is to decide how credible the evidence presented is and then apply that evidence to the legal framework provided by the judge. When was the last time you saw a judge cite a jury's opinion as a basis for legal precedent? Or, for that matter, when was the last time you saw a jury-written opinion?