Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
OK. I can see your point(s). And they seem logical (and fair) to me. The punishment/settlement should address the illegal activity (collusion) only, and not force them to abandon the legal practice of agency pricing itself.
The problem lies with the fact that many believe there would have been no way any individual publishing house would have been able to get retailers to accept an agency pricing contract with them (without the knowledge that the pendulum was swinging that way en masse). So why should they be able to retain what they never would have been able to achieve without collusion?
Surely a "legal" advantage can be voided if it was gained illegally? Otherwise these kinds of end-runs around the law would become commonplace. Maybe they already are. *shrugs*
|
I agree. The legal activity was achieved illegally, so therefore, it should be stripped from them and they should be forced to start all over by doing it legally this time.