Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
No, the legal definition of price fixing is when multiple competitors come together to decide on a price that everyone will charge. So price fixing is when two or more publishers come together and say we are going to charge X dollars for our books. Agency pricing is _NOT_ price fixing and has been upheld by the courts as perfectly legal, even if that doesn't follow the evil publishers narrative that some are so fond of pushing. The publishers have never admitted to conspiring to price fixing. They have never been charged with price fixing. They were charged with anti-trust on the charge that they got together to insist on agency pricing. They settled the case without admitting guilt.
|
I am trying to understand your logic here. According to you:
price fixing == multiple competitors, agreement, set prices.
agency pricing == individual acts to set prices.
publishers accused of == multiple competitors, agreement, agency pricing
==>
publishers accused of != price fixing.
For the purposes of this discussion, it is important to note that "setting a minimum price" is an instantiation of "setting prices".
Aside: I see you feel it important to point out that they settled without admitting guilt. Just curious, what difference you feel that actually makes to anyone on the planet?