Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Well, that's the argument to the Supreme Court.
"Yes, we colluded to fix prices BUT we did it for a good business reason, and we're asking you to make an exception to the general rule"
That's how the defendant won in the Leegin case. Now will the Supreme Court buy this in a case where there is not one supplier, but a group of suppliers acting in concert? Dunno. Possible, though.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems in this instance, the defendants are saying; "No, we did
not collude to fix prices. But in the event you decide that we
did... just know that we did so for a good business reason."