STRIKING DOWN CENTURY-OLD ANTITRUST RULE, COURT LIFTS BAN ON MINIMUM RETAIL PRICING

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Minimum Retail Pricing
By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: June 29, 2007

WASHINGTON, June 28 — Striking down an antitrust rule nearly a century old, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that it was not automatically unlawful for manufacturers and distributors to agree on minimum retail prices.

The decision will give producers significantly more, though not unlimited, power to dictate retail prices and to restrict the flexibility of discounters.

Five justices, agreeing with the nation’s major manufacturers, said the new rule could in some instances lead to more competition and better service. But four dissenting justices agreed with 37 states and some consumer groups that abandoning the old rule could result in significantly higher prices and less competition for consumer and other goods.

The court struck down the 96-year-old rule that resale price maintenance agreements were an automatic, or per se, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In its place, the court instructed judges considering such agreements for possible antitrust violations to apply a case-by-case approach, known as a “rule of reason,” to assess their impact on competition. The new rule is considerably more favorable to defendants.

The decision was handed down on the last day of the court’s term, which has been notable for overturning precedents and for victories for big businesses and antitrust defendants. It was also the latest of a series of antitrust decisions in recent years rejecting per se rules that had prohibited various marketing agreements between companies....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/washington/29bizcourt.html?hp

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Coming Next - Teaching Evolution Banned

That's only 82 years old.

[tblue]

4. If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve

Heard that on the radio today.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. LOL n/t

[WCGreen]

2. I can smell the stench of the 1890's coming back to haunt us....

What next, revoking the rights of women to vote...

[tblue]

3. Ten fold

[IChing]

7. I think 1858 has also appeared on the way back machine dial

Dred Scott is next.

[OzarkDem]

10. Eliminating child labor laws

I'm sure that's on their list, too.

[Le Taz Hot]

6. Oh, well, hell!

Why not go back to Pleshy vs. Ferguson? Or even bring back slavery! Yeah, that's the ticket!

:mad: :argh:

[bluethruandthru]

8. Can we add more members to the Supreme Court?

Since it looks like we're stuck with these five assholes until they die...can't the next hopefully Dem president and Congress add to the number of justices on the high court? Could there be an 11 member court?

[IChing]

9. Yes it is legal

there might be enough support for it if we elect an overwhelming majority in Congress
and a Democratic President

Either that or have Vladimir Putin invite the catholics justices to lunch in London..

[bluethruandthru]

11. Thanks... This may be the way to go.

The 11 justices,I mean... Although lunch with Putin is tempting! :)

[roamer65]

12. Yes. Roosevelt threatened it 1935.

When we get our 1932-style majorities in 2008, we need to stack the court with 6 more justices. All ultra-liberal.

[bluethruandthru]

13. I'm with you.

This current court is a joke. Something has to be done. Our solidly liberal, fair justices are getting older. Adding 6 more is good.