You screwed up the read more link again... though I've finally learned to just click the permalink and read.
I'm curious, in what ways can vertical price agreements of the type just relegalized cause harm? It's not obvious to me that allowing manufacturers and retailers to coordinate prices more than MAP policy used to permit will result in the price gouging or volatility of 1890s' America.
I think that the concern (not sure I buy it) is about corporate "bigness."
In a sense, if a manufacturer can control the pricing of its product lines down multiple levels of distribution, it makes the manufacturer into a mini-conglomerate. The original concern in 1890 was interlocking corporate boards and literal trusts allowing a corporation to "wag the dog" far beyond its own physical plant and product, tempting at least the threat of violent rebellion.
The argument I have heard in favor of RPM is that it protects Main Street from Wal-Mart and that it encourages retailers to make long-term investments in service and support, paid or unpaid, for a product line, knowing they won't get slashed.
I think that the best argument in favor of RPM agreements is that the MSRP "threat" game is a bit stupid and inefficient, and that courts could retain jurisdiction to slap down egregious arrangements case by case.
The decision did not hold that retail price maintenance schemes are fine and dandy, merely that there are certain situations (e.g. a luxury goods manufacturer that would lose market share if the price fell below a certain level) where it could be economically justified.
Dr. Miles was old, decrepti, and useless and I'm glad the Court has finally euthanized him.
thanks Bruce...and I echo what Mr. X says, this ruling merely takes the per se aspect of Miles out of the equation.
Commenting by HaloScan
