View Single Post
Old 04-17-2012, 05:59 PM   #29
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,726
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools View Post
Actually, its not. THe Supreme Court in 2007 specifically cited the "showroom effect" (not in those words) in its deciasion holding that resale price maintainence was permissible in certain circumstances.
You are still missing the point.
It isn't that an Agency type agreement is illegal, it isn't.
What is illegal is for multiple publishers to collude in simultaneously introducing one.
That has nothing to do with Amazon's policies, good or bad.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote