There's been much talk about the Supreme's decisions on
desegregation and
free speech, but another ruling with broad consumer impact has gone relatively unnoticed. In a
5-4 decision [PDF], the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down a 96-year-old ban on minimum pricing agreements between manufacturers and retailers. Dissenting opinion believes that this ruling will hurt consumers, raise prices and keep new retailers out of the marketplace. The 1911 ruling that was overturned was
Dr. Miles Medical Co. vs. John D. Park & Sons which decided that it is always illegal for a supplier to dictate minimum prices to a retailer.
posted by dejah420
on Jun 29, 2007 -
47 comments
The Supreme Court issued its opinion
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly [pdf] today. Although superficially an antitrust case, the Court examined the standard of review under 12(b)(6) and concluded that the old "no set of facts" standard should be officially retired.
posted by monju_bosatsu
on May 21, 2007 -
34 comments
Newsfilter: The US House Committee on the Judiciary today
approved the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act (
HR 5417) in a vote of 20-12, helping to improve the provision of equal network service regardless of who receives it, without added surcharges, along with other antitrust measures. Carriers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon suggest no problem exists that requires this legislative solution, despite
pushing their lobbyists hard to get Congress to enact opposing laws, and suggesting that prioritizing network traffic is required to develop newer products, such as
high-definition video. Meanwhile, the FCC continues to encourage
mergers while prices for telecommunications products continue to rise at rates
manyfold higher than inflation, despite price gouging provisions enacted in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
posted by Mr. Six
on May 26, 2006 -
13 comments
As Attorney General for the State of North Dakota, I am pleased to enclose payment for your claim in the settlement of the Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation. Checks have gone out to people who "purchased prerecorded Music Products, consisting of compact discs, cassettes and vinyl albums, from one or more retailers during the period January 1, 1995, through December 22, 2000." Mine was for $13.86. I think I'll go buy an indie CD.
posted by travis
on Feb 24, 2004 -
24 comments
I made my claim. Have you?
This Web site was established to provide information about a proposed Settlement of lawsuits brought by Attorneys General of 43 states, Commonwealths and Territories, and by counsel for the Plaintiff Settlement Class entitled In re: Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation. You may be a member of the Settlement Group and your rights against Defendants may be affected if you are a person or entity that purchased these prerecorded Music Products from a retail store during the period of January 1, 1995 through December 22, 2000.
posted by Witty
on Jan 7, 2003 -
12 comments
Taming the Wild West Net. The Washington Post takes a stab at the internet and what's been going on the last year +. Also, a roundup of
piracy and
antitrust issues. Good series of articles, except no real conclusion on how the "Wild West Net" should be tamed. Or why it has to be.
posted by Happydaz
on Jun 18, 2002 -
0 comments
Microsoft has designed a Windows XP patch that will trick computers into behaving as though IE, Outlook Express, and Messenger aren't there, though not removing them, per the requirements of its antitrust settlement. They demonstrated a working version to the AP yesterday.
Oh yeah, and they're releasing it as a 40 megabyte download. In August. And it's other primary function will be to potentially sabotage the operating system.
Good ol' Microsoft.
posted by gsteff
on May 23, 2002 -
14 comments
Microsoft plans "doomsday defense". Microsoft Corp. plans to argue in court hearings next week that if antitrust sanctions sought by state prosecutors are granted, the company would be forced to pull its latest Windows computer operating systems off the market and be unable to develop new systems.
posted by aaronshaf
on Mar 4, 2002 -
56 comments
Fed Up? Happy? Excited? Step right up and add your comments to the Microsoft Antitrust Trial. Due to the Tunney Act, all of us have the right to comment on the proceedings. The comment period closes Monday morning (the 28th) so if you have an opinion, and we know everyone here does, email/snail mail/call the DOJ.
posted by plemeljr
on Jan 23, 2002 -
5 comments
AOL's Netscape sues Microsoft for damage done to its Netscape Internet browser by violations of antitrust law found in a separate government case against the software giant. "I don't see this case as primarily about money. I see it as primarily about injunctive relief,'' said Steve Salop, a Georgetown University law professor.
posted by hitsman
on Jan 22, 2002 -
9 comments
Justice Rejects Microsoft Penalty (yahoo news) The government considered but rejected penalties against Microsoft Corp. in its antitrust case that would have required the company to reveal the secret blueprints to its flagship Windows software and to distribute products from its fiercest rivals, court records show.
The Justice Department also set up an e-mail address where consumers and companies may send their comments about the antitrust settlement. That address is:
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov Whether or not you're pro-Microsoft, anti-Microsoft, or on the fence... I encourage everyone to send their thoughts along.
posted by SilentSalamander
on Nov 16, 2001 -
9 comments
Microsoft signs consent decree with the US government to settle antitrust case. Settlement is fair, reasonable and good for consumers; It is time now to focus on challenges ahead for the industry and Economy, says Gates.
posted by riffola
on Nov 2, 2001 -
23 comments
Has The Entire American Media Been Bought and Gone To Sleep? United has decided to call off merging with US Air for fears of Antitrust (competition) objections (from the USDOJ; perhaps the EU as well?). This sort of obvious realization came after months and months of, presumedly, attempting to work around the problem. What I want to know is, when the proposed deal was first announced, where were the objections from commentators and consumer advocates? It's sort of pathetic that United is the first one to speak up on the issue, no?
posted by ParisParamus
on Jul 2, 2001 -
12 comments
Judge rules Microsoft must split up Judge Jackson handed down the verdict today that Microsoft should be broken into two companies: one for Windows OSes, the other for all other applications and services. Many restrictions on Microsoft's behavior would also be put in place, pretty much just ensuring they couldn't lock anyone into exclusive contracts or force bundling deals on anyone.
posted by daveadams
on Jun 7, 2000 -
38 comments
