General Discussion

djg21

(1,803 posts)

56. This isn't price fixing.

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 03:27 PM

Mar 2012

It is a unilateral act, and so long as there is no agreement, it is not an Antitrust violation and always has been perfectly lawful and appropriate so long as the manufacturer is not a monopolist. It's a free country and manufacturers generally may choose to deal, or not to deal, with any distributors they want. Manufacturers also are free to control the channels of distributions. If a manufacturer has a unilateral policy of not distributing through vendors who price cut, or which don't provide appropriate service, or which sell into the grey market, the manufacturer is perfectly within its rights.

MAP was a little differed (as are "structured" terminations) as they induce the vendor to enter an agreement arguably in restraint of trade. The key word here is "unilateral."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Anyone ever hear of Unilateral Pricing Policy? What a scam. [View all] Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 OP

We used to call that type thing collusion or price fixing. Atman Mar 2012 #1

Fixed is the word of the day Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #2

That's gone the way of the dodo Blue_Tires Mar 2012 #43

This isn't price fixing. djg21 Mar 2012 #56

Are you freaking serious? Atman Mar 2012 #62

It used to be called price fixing... rfranklin Mar 2012 #3

It's a different twist, but similar flavor. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #4

Price fixing out in the open for all to see. fasttense Mar 2012 #5

I'm not even sure any of those laws would apply. That's how sneaky this is. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #7

It's all in the terminology Atman Mar 2012 #11

It isn't anti-trust unless pipoman Mar 2012 #8

OK. It is still "price fixing". nt Romulox Mar 2012 #9

Depends if you are using the legal definition of the term or simply describing what pipoman Mar 2012 #16

Hmmm...."The defining characteristic of price fixing is any agreement regarding price..." Romulox Mar 2012 #17

No, it is not oldhippie Mar 2012 #44

It's collusion by default. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #49

This is nonsense. djg21 Mar 2012 #66

An agreement? LOL. It's a wink and a nod as usual. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #67

Just wanted to say that this post displays a basic misunderstanding of retailing. Romulox Mar 2012 #54

The answer is "sometimes" djg21 Mar 2012 #68

LOL. It's a little OTT for this board, no? nt Romulox Mar 2012 #69

Unilateral pricing is not "collusion" jmowreader Mar 2012 #78

This could help smaller merchants pipoman Mar 2012 #6

LOL. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #10

why are you laughing? onenote Mar 2012 #12

There are not a significant number of "independent Television dealers" for this to help--it's an Romulox Mar 2012 #13

Only if the different manufacturers are colluding to set prices. pipoman Mar 2012 #14

Screw the consumer overall to "help" multinational behemoths like Sony and Samsung-- Romulox Mar 2012 #15

How does it help Sony or Samsung? pipoman Mar 2012 #18

They want more money for TVs. If this isn't clear, please re-read the OP. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #19

Can you point to the part of the OP that discusses wholesale pricing? onenote Mar 2012 #21

How about you quote the OP pipoman Mar 2012 #23

The collusion is between manufacturers and their retail channels. Romulox Mar 2012 #38

You are the one making unsubstantiated claims pipoman Mar 2012 #40

That person does that pretty frequently. They love to assert facts not in evidence. nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #50

It's always fun to have fans! nt Romulox Mar 2012 #71

The only "claim" I've made is that this will in no way help consumers. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #72

You've made lots of claims, many of them strawmen and none of them supported. nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #76

Steve, I hurt your feelings over a year ago. Please let your anger go! :P nt Romulox Mar 2012 #81

LOL, believe me, if people on tv who are much better at this than you cant hurt my feelings, you stevenleser Mar 2012 #90

You're on TV, you say? That's a relevant point to bring up, if this is about your ego. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #93

Two logical fallacies in one post. For anyone else, I would say thats an accomplishment. stevenleser Mar 2012 #95

That's not what "logical fallacy" means. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #96

You wanted examples of things you dont get? You just provided another one. nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #99

This is silly and childish. Goodbye, steven. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #102

P.S. to help you out, you committed the non-sequitur and ad-hominem logical fallacies. stevenleser Mar 2012 #100

Nonsense. I merely pointed out your appeal to authority. Romulox Mar 2012 #103

P.S., this is yet another example of you using logical fallacies instead of arguments. nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #91

Good thing that anyone who can read knows better.. pipoman Mar 2012 #80

Um, pipoman, I didn't delete anything. What a lazy fabrication! nt Romulox Mar 2012 #82

Who said you did? pipoman Mar 2012 #85

What a bizarre game. I'm going to pass, this turn. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #86

That person must have attended the Palin-Quayle school of critical thought. stevenleser Mar 2012 #92

Is there anything specifically posted in this thread that you can cite to back this up? Romulox Mar 2012 #94

If you read Pipoman's post #80 again, really slowly, you might get it. Then again, since its you, stevenleser Mar 2012 #98

This isn't productive. Your personal attacks are coming from a place of extreme anger. Romulox Mar 2012 #104

Doesn't the collusion have to be horizontal (i.e., among manufacturers) in order to count? MNBrewer Mar 2012 #88

Not sure who this is directed at, but in order to be *legally actionable*, it likely does. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #97

I'm sure that smaller merchants are at the forefront of the minds of execs at Samsung and Sony. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #20

The consumer electronics retailers and manufacturers are at war onenote Mar 2012 #22

Sounds like the manufacturers are doing the pushing this time and of course it falls on the Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #26

Do you think its good for consumers in the long run if independents are driven out of business? onenote Mar 2012 #29

Samsung only made 4.5 billion last quarter, but if we work together we can get that up even higher. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #33

So what happens to independent stores doesn't interest you. onenote Mar 2012 #37

Independent stores? I remember those tkmorris Mar 2012 #45

Like newegg.com? nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #47

are you suggesting newegg.com is an indpendent retailer? onenote Mar 2012 #51

So you can't be independent if you're on the internet? You're right that this whole internet thing Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #52

The whole point of the pricing strategy is to help out local brick and mortar establishments onenote Mar 2012 #57

ROFL. You think the retailer is going to be able to keep the additional revenue? Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #58

The question is not of additional revenue, but of leveling competition between internet and B&M stevenleser Mar 2012 #60

Brick and mortar is on the decline for other reasons than price. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #61

Thanks for confirming where you stand with respect to mom and pop business v. megachains. onenote Mar 2012 #63

Sorry that technology has made e-books more attractive. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #64

My "local bookstore" is a Barnes and Noble. Amazon is fantastic! nt Romulox Mar 2012 #73

We didn't "level competition" between the covered wagon and the steam locomotive. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #74

Who is 'we' and why are 'we' making a preindustrial age comparison to current day commercial events? stevenleser Mar 2012 #75

Luddites always demand technology be hobbled in favor of the status quo. Romulox Mar 2012 #84

What you posted makes no such argument. It's complete nonsense. nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #89

You come to these threads unable to engage with the posts. Romulox Mar 2012 #101

Big cheer leader for low, low prices pipoman Mar 2012 #31

How many US workers are working for Samsung. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #35

Apparently quite a few.. pipoman Mar 2012 #41

I see city names and not #'s. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #46

I'm sure those numbers are available should your curiosity be sincere... LanternWaste Mar 2012 #83

Sometime read about Vlasic pickles and walmart pipoman Mar 2012 #24

ROFL. There's always the option of not signing the contract in the 1st place. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #25

WalMart is known for buying at a reasonable wholesale price pipoman Mar 2012 #27

ROFL. Given that this is a known value, maybe manufacturers shouldn't sign those contracts. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #28

So sorry you are not getting it..others do.. pipoman Mar 2012 #30

Pinnacle only made 41 million last quarter. Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #32

It ultimately doesn't hurt the companies to offshore US jobs pipoman Mar 2012 #34

Call me when they're making below 10 million a quarter. We can start a DU fund drive. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #36

You are on the side of the 'screw US workers brigade'..got it pipoman Mar 2012 #42

I keep waiting for Vlasic to open their own franchised stores. nt Snake Alchemist Mar 2012 #48

It is indeed the whackjob KamaAina Mar 2012 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Mar 2012 #39

People can also do without. Zalatix Mar 2012 #53

This has been going on in multiple industries for a long time. Pandora Jewlery is a good example stevenleser Mar 2012 #59

Sounds Like a Case That Came Up During the Bork Hearings On the Road Mar 2012 #65

Headline today was that Sharp is in serious trouble. Flat tv sales = cutthroat. nt Romulox Mar 2012 #70

This has been around for years for all kinds of products. Sen. Walter Sobchak Mar 2012 #77

There is a work-around Mopar151 Mar 2012 #79

How is that a free market for a retailer? originalpckelly Mar 2012 #87

Didn't expect this to turn into such a hot topic! Romulox Mar 2012 #105