|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Re: The usual disinformation- and how!! posted by Matts_ on March 26, 2007 at 12:32:26:
Your post confuses me somewhat.Unilateral refusals to deal in furtherance of a unilateral price support regime (with the qualification that there must be more to it than that, which I did not feel worth getting into) are legal, period.
I therefore don't understand what you mean about price fixing being illegal in the absence of a conspiracy.
If what you meant was the absence of a horizontal component to the price support regime, which apparently was the case in the appeal before the court today, I still don't understand what you mean.
In the case argued today, apparently there were several breaches of RPM by several retailers, and the manufacturer went beyond unilaterality and obtained the explicit agreement of all but one retailer to stop discounting. Obtaining those agreements, even if they were involuntary, is what constituted conspiratorial behavior.
Given the huge number of market entrants in handbags and stereos, I think analyzing such agreements under the Rule of Reason makes sense.
As far as taking legal advice from the FTC site, the site is an official pronouncement of the enforcement body. I know that you can't estop the sovereign in the performance of a soverign act, but it must count for something.
As far as taking legal advice from me, I was not asking anyone to. But, just for the record, I earned a JD at Vanderbilt. One of my antitrust teachers was appointed to the FTC by President Reagan. I three times contributed to peer-reviewed publications of the American Law Institute in connection with the ALI's annual antitrust conference at Harvard. And I have in my files some samples of unilateral RPM documents from high-end audio companies. Not prepared by me. And they look OK to me under the FTC guidance.
As far as "Jesuitical" goes, a "Jesuitical distinction" is a US legal catch phrase for a formal distinction that fails to address the underlying reality.
My guess: Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia in favor of Rule of Reason.
Ginsburg and Breyer in favor of Per Se. The others up for grabs.
I guess 5-4 in favor of Rule of Reason, but if it were 5-4 in favor of Per Se, life goes on.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Huh? - John Marks 13:50:57 03/26/07 (4)
- Then a "Jesuitical distinction" is like a Talmudic distinction? Interesting... nt - clarkjohnsen 08:02:13 03/27/07 (0)
- Re: no, it's not a catchphrase, it's a religious slur; rest of your post shows why you obviously don't practice law n/t - Matts_ 15:15:32 03/26/07 (2)
- Re: no, it's not a catchphrase, it's a religious slur; rest of your post shows why you obviously don't practice law n/t - Dawnrazor 15:27:35 03/26/07 (1)
- Re: no, it's not a catchphrase, it's a religious slur; rest of your post shows why you obviously don't practice law n/t - Matts_ 20:24:03 03/26/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
