Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
|
The Tabberone™ Archives These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement. When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position. |
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/07/how-the-leegin-.html January 5, 2008 |
Public Citizen Litigation Group |
Friday July 6, 2007
How the Leegin Decision Will Hurt Consumers on the Internet by Greg Beck
In Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS |
A customer may take advantage of one retailer's informed sales staff, hands-on demonstrations, and convenient shopping locations and hours. Having received the value of those services, the customer may then purchase the product from another retailer that does not provide the same level of service and, therefore, can afford to sell the product for less. See Lester G. Telser, Why Should Manufacturers Want Fair Trade?, 3 J.L. & Econ. 86 (1960); G. Franklin Mathewson & Ralph A. Winter, The Incentives for Resale Price Maintenance Under Imperfect Competition, 21 Econ. Inquiry 337 (1983). For example, a customer may inspect, try out, and learn about a particular type of digital camera at a highend retailer but then purchase the product from a discount retailer, through mail order, or over the internet. |
So high-end retailers, the argument goes, face a threat from cheaper Internet competitors. Allowing minimum price agreements
will supposedly eliminate the free-rider problem by preventing discounters from undercutting the prices of these retailers.
Since consumers won't be able to buy the camera cheaper on the Internet, they might as well buy it at the expensive retailer,
allowing the retailer to survive and benefit other consumers with its services. However, as Justice Breyer points out in his
dissent, there doesn't appear to be any empirical evidence that this free-rider problem is in fact a problem, and, in any case,
the so-called benefit to consumers comes only at the cost of higher prices. One of the only safe predictions about the decision,
Justice Breyer writes, is "that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail."
One of the great benefits of the Internet is the ability it gives consumers to compare products and find the cheapest prices online. Leegin will make it easier for companies to ensure that goods for sale online are priced the same across all websites and between websites and traditional retail stores. Those consumers who have become used to finding Internet bargains will be rightly skeptical of the Supreme Court's assurance that higher prices are good for them. Posted by Greg Beck on Friday, July 06, 2007 at 05:45 PM |
General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Corporate Lawyers |
Definitions |
Federal Court Cases Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations |
Federal Statutes Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22 |
VeRO (Verified Right's Owner Program) VeRO Commandments | VeRO-Verified Rights Owners Program | Counter Notice Letter Counter Notice (pre-2003) | Counter Notice present | On-Line Survey from 2004 | Articles about VeRO | What To Do If You Are Veroed |
Original material by Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors is © 1999-2017 |