vettecat: (bookcase)
vettecat ([personal profile] vettecat) wrote2007-08-08 01:05 am
Entry tags:

The Supremes effect

Saw an article in a printer's newsletter today about a Supreme Court decision that will affect us in a positive way. Apparently they've overturned an old antitrust law, with the result that manufacturers can now enforce, rather than merely suggest, retail prices. (I imagine that [livejournal.com profile] osewalrus has been following this already.) That's good for us because it should reduce the number of people undercutting our prices and stealing away customers we've worked with. But I wonder how it's going to affect discount chains and such. This should be interesting...

[identity profile] jbsegal.livejournal.com 2007-08-08 07:03 am (UTC)(link)
I think the decision is repulsive and will do nothing but hurt consumers. I've been pissed about it since I 1st heard of it the day it came out — damn, a month and a half ago.

I know it's hard not to take that personally, but really, it's not meant that way.

Hopefully I'll be awake enough to explain this later.
I'm not now.

[identity profile] vettecat.livejournal.com 2007-08-09 05:02 am (UTC)(link)
I can see that it might be bad for consumers, but at the moment I'm looking at it from the retailer point of view...

[identity profile] paradoox.livejournal.com 2007-08-08 09:57 am (UTC)(link)
Sorry I think you are in the minority here in thinking this is good news. And I have a bridge to sell you if you don't think the big players are getting kickbacks from manufacturers and figuring out ways to screw the little guys like you behind your back.

[identity profile] vettecat.livejournal.com 2007-08-09 05:03 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think we sell for anyone large enough to have that kind of influence.
sethg: picture of me with a fedora and a "PRESS: Daily Planet" card in the hat band (Default)

[personal profile] sethg 2007-08-09 12:49 am (UTC)(link)
On the one hand, I think the majority decision made a good argument on economic grounds that allowing manufacturers to dictate minimum prices to retailers is not necessarily a restraint of competition.

On the other hand, the Supremes were not overturning a law--they were overturning their predecessors' interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That doesn't sit well with me. The old interpretation had been settled for almost a hundred years. It manufacturers had a good case to make for changing it, they should have gone to Congress and convinced our elected representatives to change the law.

I'm also worried that this is part of a broader trend in American jurisprudence to interpret the law in whatever way is most convenient for large corporations.

[identity profile] vettecat.livejournal.com 2007-08-09 05:05 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think this affects the manufacturers much, they still get the same wholesale price regardless of what the product actually sells for.