ruddy
About
- Username
- ruddy
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 94
Reactions
Comments
-
Quote: but then you start calling evidence "indisputable". Really? Please, who has disputed that BAM, Google, and Apple all entered the ebook market in the year after the publishers shifted ebooks to Agency? Who is disputing that in the year af…
-
Quote: What preconceived conclusion? You're arguing a bias with only 11 posts, I think it unlikely you know me well enough to claim any bias. I have no dog in this fight and am only repeating the facts I find elsewhere. You made up facts that …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet Lets assume for the moment that Amazon's pricing is illegal. Can you show me how participating / falicitating an illegal price fixing conspiracy is a lawful remedy? Of course you can't, because even …
-
Quote: They abandoned this line of argument because horizontal conspiracies are not judged by the "rule of reason" as I understand it, but are per-se illegal. Do you have any actual link to their arguments? Or just a screenshot from a blog? You…
-
Quote: Ruddy, the wiki link you cited doesn't say predatory pricing is always illegal, even if that company holds a monopoly position. There's a number of qualifications First of all I never said predatory pricing is _always_ illegal. I said it …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by dasanman69 Your proof is contradictory. On one hand you claim 'predatory pricing' kept competitors out, but then you show that prices went down after competition increased. I don't know about your math but in mine …
-
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by ruddy In most cases loss leading is not illegal. However, loss leading by a monopoly player most certainly is illegal. Is it? Can you cite that please? Here you go. Quote: Neither is breaking antitr…
-
Quote: edit: Now I've read it the situation seems to be more complex than I was aware of, I'll keep reading but my statement above may have been too strong. Here's the whole FRAND thing in a nutshell. Companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc.…
-
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by ruddy In most cases loss leading is not illegal. However, loss leading by a monopoly player most certainly is illegal. Is it? Can you cite that please? Here ya go. Quote: The fact of the matter th…
-
Quote: By this argument you paint all loss-leader tactics as illegal, but in reality they are not illegal. In most cases loss leading is not illegal. However, loss leading by a monopoly player most certainly is illegal. Quote: Apple could…
-
For anyone to enter the ebook market and go up against a dominant monopoly that artificially priced bestsellers at break-even or below-cost, they would have to be brain dead. Why enter a market where you can't make any money? This exclusion of new c…
-
Cote is ideologically aligned with the DoJ, and the DoJ is in opposition to the Supreme Court's controversial but landmark decision in 2008 in Leegin v PSKS, which overturned 100 years of antitrust precedent which had said that price-fixing is ALWAY…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by thompr Most merchants do not attempt to resell items below cost, with the exception of temporary promotions or sales to drive foot traffic (or in the case of online "eye traffic"). Keyword there is temporary, like Cy…
-
This conflict is really part of a greater ideological battle going on in antitrust law, and it's helpful to see it in that context as it explains why the DoJ went after Apple instead of Amazon. First some background. The Sherman Act says all restrai…