Supreme Court: Price fixing makes for a better nation
Just remember: The U.S. Supreme Court, as it now stands, will likely never rule in favor of the people, on any issue, whether Freedom of Speech, or fair business practices.
Supreme Court OKs retail price fixing by manufacturers
WASHINGTON — Manufacturers may set a fixed price for their products and forbid retailers from offering discounts, the Supreme Court said today, overturning a nearly century-old rule of antitrust law that prohibited retail price fixing.
The 5-4 ruling may be felt by shoppers, including those who buy on the Internet. It permits manufacturers to adopt and enforce what lawyers called “resale price maintenance agreements” that forbid discounting.
Until today, the nation has had an unusually competitive retail market, in part because antitrust laws made it illegal for sellers or manufacturers to agree on fixed prices. The Supreme Court, in a 1911 case involving Dr. Miles and his patented medicines, had said that price-fixing agreements between manufacturers and retail sellers were flatly illegal.
The rule’s practical effect was to discourage a manufacturer from setting a price, leading, for instance, to stickers on the windows of new cars that list the “manufacturer’s suggested retail price.”
However, in today’s opinion, the high court described this rule as outdated and out of step with modern economics.
Manufacturers of products ranging from watches and computers to golf clubs and tennis rackets compete with other brands, so competition will not suffer, the court majority said. Moreover, manufacturers should be free to control how their products will be marketed and sold, it said.
–WKW
June 28th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Oh that’s just brilliant. What about competition between the retailers themselves? Where people used to go to Store A to get one specific item at a reduced rate and possibly shop more while there, now they’ll just go to Store B where they were going to get some other items anyway. I wonder if Store B’s lobby had anything to do with this…
June 28th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
“manufacturers should be free to control how their products will be marketed and sold,”
Sure. UP TO THE POINT THEY SELL THEM. Once retailers purchase them, how does the SC figure the manufactures retain “rights” over property that no longer belongs to them?
There is absolutely zero basis in the constitution for this. This is about as anti-capitalism as you can get. If I purchase something, it belongs to me. If I wish to sell it for a nickel, it’s no ones business. This goes to prove so called “conservative” judges don’t give a piss about the constitution. There is a term they are found of using…JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.
This pretty much wipes out eBay and yard sales.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Let’s see, Congress wants to investigate price gouging at the gas pumps and then the Supreme Court comes out with this ‘hey price fixing’s great’ endorsement. Why do I think Cheney might have had a hand in this?
June 28th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I honestly can’t see how this won’t end up destroying tons and tons of small businesses. The select few have to be thrilled tho. And Wonder Cow brings up a hell of a point: what about eBay?
This line from the story tells it all: “Until today, the nation has had an unusually competitive retail market, ”
And now, it doesn’t.
–WKW