foofighter20x
06-28-2007, 04:09 PM
More rulings handed down today... (http://start.localnet.com/article.php?article=D8Q20T0O2.html)
In a third case, the Court abandoned a 96-year-old ban on manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said that agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition.
The ruling means that accusations of minimum pricing pacts will be evaluated case by case.
The Supreme Court declared in 1911 that minimum pricing agreements violate federal antitrust law.
WTF?! When does price collusion ever promote competetion?! :mad: :rolleyes:
In a third case, the Court abandoned a 96-year-old ban on manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said that agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition.
The ruling means that accusations of minimum pricing pacts will be evaluated case by case.
The Supreme Court declared in 1911 that minimum pricing agreements violate federal antitrust law.
WTF?! When does price collusion ever promote competetion?! :mad: :rolleyes: