From today's L.A. Times:
The Supreme Court took up the case of a small Southern California ink maker Tuesday to reconsider a nearly 60-year-old rule of antitrust law that affects industries including pharmaceuticals, auto parts and movies.
...
In the movie industry, for example, theater owners won rulings after complaining that they were forced to run studios' second-rate films as a condition of getting their copyrighted blockbusters.
...
That rule stands in jeopardy after Tuesday's argument. Most of the justices said they were inclined to make it harder for challengers to sue big companies that imposed tying requirements on their customers.
If so, the outcome could affect the giant aftermarket in replacement parts for products such as autos, computers and printers. If the court makes it much harder to win antitrust suits, some legal experts say it will encourage the makers of popular products to impose tying requirements on their customers.
The future of the drug industry could be affected as well. Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant, has proposed marketing a new anti-cholesterol drug by combining it in one pill with its best-selling Lipitor, which is facing the loss of its patent protection. The legality of that arrangement may depend on the court's ruling.
The case that came before the high court began when Independent Ink Inc., based in Gardena, Calif, sued Trident Inc., the leading maker of printers for industrial uses.[..] Trident [...] requires buyers of its patented printers to also buy its replacement ink.
Independent Ink says it sells the same ink for one-third as much, but cannot compete in the market because of Trident's tying deal.
"Their customers said to us, 'We would love to buy from you, but we can't,' " said Barry Brucker, chief executive of Independent Ink. "We're a $5-million-a-year company going up against a company that has $11 billion in sales per year. This is David versus Goliath."
In the Supreme Court on Tuesday, "Goliath" had some very big allies. Bush administration lawyers joined the case on the side of Trident and urged the Supreme Court to overturn past rulings that presumed patent holders had enough market power to force buyers to buy extra items.
...
--------------------------
I'm so glad to see that the immense resources of the taxpayer-funded Justice Department are being used wisely.
Now we may finally get back to the good old days when movie theaters weren't given any good movies unless they also took three crappy ones. And why shouldn't printer manufacturers be allowed to force us to buy their monopoly product? It would even make sense for them to require that all printing paper be bought through them. And Epson brand printable DVDs should be the only ones allowed.
And for your car, no more Pep Boys' windshield wipers. You have to buy original windshield wipers and spark plugs at whatever price the auto manufacturer wants to charge.
This would all be good for the profits of the very largest companies so it would be good for America (at least as far as contributions to unethical politicians go).
Why do we have to make the same mistake over and over again?
This is not the first time in history by a long shot. It goes back centuries to the starving sharecroppers who could never afford to buy their own land no matter how hard they worked. We will soon become sharecroppers if we accept these trusts and monopolies (whether private or government ditto).
The Supreme Court took up the case of a small Southern California ink maker Tuesday to reconsider a nearly 60-year-old rule of antitrust law that affects industries including pharmaceuticals, auto parts and movies.
...
In the movie industry, for example, theater owners won rulings after complaining that they were forced to run studios' second-rate films as a condition of getting their copyrighted blockbusters.
...
That rule stands in jeopardy after Tuesday's argument. Most of the justices said they were inclined to make it harder for challengers to sue big companies that imposed tying requirements on their customers.
If so, the outcome could affect the giant aftermarket in replacement parts for products such as autos, computers and printers. If the court makes it much harder to win antitrust suits, some legal experts say it will encourage the makers of popular products to impose tying requirements on their customers.
The future of the drug industry could be affected as well. Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant, has proposed marketing a new anti-cholesterol drug by combining it in one pill with its best-selling Lipitor, which is facing the loss of its patent protection. The legality of that arrangement may depend on the court's ruling.
The case that came before the high court began when Independent Ink Inc., based in Gardena, Calif, sued Trident Inc., the leading maker of printers for industrial uses.[..] Trident [...] requires buyers of its patented printers to also buy its replacement ink.
Independent Ink says it sells the same ink for one-third as much, but cannot compete in the market because of Trident's tying deal.
"Their customers said to us, 'We would love to buy from you, but we can't,' " said Barry Brucker, chief executive of Independent Ink. "We're a $5-million-a-year company going up against a company that has $11 billion in sales per year. This is David versus Goliath."
In the Supreme Court on Tuesday, "Goliath" had some very big allies. Bush administration lawyers joined the case on the side of Trident and urged the Supreme Court to overturn past rulings that presumed patent holders had enough market power to force buyers to buy extra items.
...
--------------------------
I'm so glad to see that the immense resources of the taxpayer-funded Justice Department are being used wisely.
Now we may finally get back to the good old days when movie theaters weren't given any good movies unless they also took three crappy ones. And why shouldn't printer manufacturers be allowed to force us to buy their monopoly product? It would even make sense for them to require that all printing paper be bought through them. And Epson brand printable DVDs should be the only ones allowed.
And for your car, no more Pep Boys' windshield wipers. You have to buy original windshield wipers and spark plugs at whatever price the auto manufacturer wants to charge.
This would all be good for the profits of the very largest companies so it would be good for America (at least as far as contributions to unethical politicians go).
Why do we have to make the same mistake over and over again?
This is not the first time in history by a long shot. It goes back centuries to the starving sharecroppers who could never afford to buy their own land no matter how hard they worked. We will soon become sharecroppers if we accept these trusts and monopolies (whether private or government ditto).