DA 16-50 and DA 50-135 prices doubled - It's an outrage

Started Sep 2, 2012 | Discussions thread
glanglois
Contributing MemberPosts: 987
Like?
Re: DA 16-50 and DA 50-135 prices doubled - It's an outrage
In reply to Jim in Hudson, Sep 3, 2012

I think the except you chose made my point, Jim:

Price maintenance that is embodied in one or more agreements is still illegal.

Anti-competitive behavior that includes retail price maintenance is still illegal.

But minimum pricing declared unilaterally by the manufacturer (in this case) that is not anti-competitive and is not carried out by agreement is still generally legal.

There's more at Monsanto v. Spray-Rite but the decision I linked to is easier (for me) to learn from.

All the best,

Geoffrey

Jim in Hudson wrote:

glanglois wrote:

Jim in Hudson wrote:

Those who imply Pentax is the reason for large price increases or swings should provide some evidence that Pentax is behind this. It's entirely possible that Pentax is granting on again, off again large rebates to major resellers which could account for this but I've not seen anything to suggest that's what's happening. As a default, we should keep in mind that it's illegal in the USA (and many other countries) for a manufacturer to dictate resale prices of their products.

Your view of the legality of minimum pricing is common but incorrect. Pentax can set minimum prices as long as it's not done via conspiracy or contract. Pentax has the right, in the US, to refuse to sell products to retailers who won't abide by a minimum price schedule. You may want to take a look at: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/485/717/

I believe my view is correct and, in fact, since I manage the distribution sales for our business I need to know what the law is. Here is an excerpt from the link you provided:

"Held: A vertical restraint of trade is not per se illegal under § 1 of the Sherman Act unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels. Pp. 485 U. S. 723-736.

(a) Ordinarily, whether particular concerted action violates § 1 is determined through case-by-case application of the rule of reason. Per se rules are appropriate only for conduct that is manifestly anticompetitive. Although vertical agreements on resale prices are illegal per se , extension of that treatment to other vertical restraints must be based on demonstrable economic effect, rather than upon formalistic line drawing."

So, yes, vertical agreements on resale prices are per se illegal (IOW, by definition).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow