Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Apr 2012 11:00 UTC
Permalink for comment 513699
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-05-19
No, but colluding to set prices is an antitrust violation. It's a very fine line.
This case is clearly designed to test Leegin v. PSKS (2007), which struck down the prohibition on vertical price agreements that had stood for almost a century. But Leegin was a 5-4 decision, and Justice Kennedy's majority opinion left a tantalizing opening by stating that "Resale price maintenance … can also be abused by a powerful manufacturer or retailer."
The DOJ has been waiting for a test case, and they've apparently concluded that a better one is not going to show up. How much more powerful can you get than Apple?
It all comes down to Justice Kennedy. Whichever way he decides will be the "5" side of the resulting 5-4 decision.
Edited 2012-04-11 20:15 UTC