Supreme Court reverses century-old ban on price fixing, inviting mobster-like behavior from manufacturers.
funnybu...@yahoo.com
bear...@cruller.invalid
funnybu...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
True. Consumers can expect higher retail prices to result from this
decision. Big surprise from a Bush-spiked court. Better start saving
your pennies again, middle class. Better start getting used to more
deprivation, lower class.
Larry Bud
> Read all about it,
Liberal to English dictionary:
Sell your product for more than your competition: Price gouging
Sell your product for the same as your competition: Price fixing
Sell your product for less than your competition: Dumping
What's a businessman to do?
George Grapman
Hardly sounds like free enterprise.
Regie_Satanis
Isn't dumping what businesses accuse everyone else of doing when they
can't compete?
jmh
confessed to the world saying:
I think that depends. One of the problems allowing a
manufacture (persumably the product owner and so
someone who typically is assumed to be able to set
the terms for transferring ownership of an item)
helps solve is middlemen (distributors) establishing
themselves in a monopsony position.
Not too much diffrent than the recoding company
(or preferably the recording artist who maintains
ownership of the music/video) only selling the right
to view but not copy and resell or a builder only
selling the house with the strings of some HOA.
It might actually be a more competitive market for
consumers with those terms than if the minimum retail
price could not be set by the manufacturer. No doubt
some cases will not lend themselve to the competitive
outcome so how law and regualtion is applied will still
probably determine the good, bad and ugly.
jmh
George Grapman
though California banned minimum pricing one manufacturer sent mystery
shoppers top dealers to see if they were selling below the "suggested"
price. If they were nothing was said but they suddenly had problems
getting new orders filled.
By the way, California law prohibits retailers from selling milk
below cost.
Larry Bud
Sure it is. Why shouldn't a company be allow to set terms on how
their product is sold? If the public and the retailers don't like it,
they won't buy it. Nobody is forcing anybody to do ANYTHING in cases
like these.
Larry Bud
Yes. You just can't win.
George Grapman
thereby limiting competition.
Larry Bud
The retailer is free to buy or not to buy the product from the
manufacturer according to the contact the two have signed. If the
retailer doesn't like the terms, they shouldn't have signed the
contract.
George Grapman
price.
George
>>>>> The court is allowing manufacturers to set a minimum retail price.
>>>>> Hardly sounds like free enterprise.
>>>> Sure it is. Why shouldn't a company be allow to set terms on how
>>>> their product is sold? If the public and the retailers don't like it,
>>>> they won't buy it. Nobody is forcing anybody to do ANYTHING in cases
>>>> like these.
>>> The manufacturer is forcing the retailer to sell at a set price
>>> thereby limiting competition.
>>
>> The retailer is free to buy or not to buy the product from the
>> manufacturer according to the contact the two have signed. If the
>> retailer doesn't like the terms, they shouldn't have signed the
>> contract.
>>
> But is is hardly free enterprise to force them to sell at a certain
> price.
Sure it is. I am a manufacturer and decide to set a floor price. If you
don't agree you don't buy from me.
I don't know the reason it reached the Supreme Court but I suspect many
manufacturers are tired of dealing with end users because
"cheapstuff.com" is selling their products for cheap with the only
service they provide is a cheap price. Where previously a store might
make a few bucks on a sale and be able to offer assistance in the
purchase such as advising suitability for use etc.
ra...@vt.edu
> George Grapman wrote:
> > But is is hardly free enterprise to force them to sell at a certain
> > price.
> Sure it is. I am a manufacturer and decide to set a floor price. If you
> don't agree you don't buy from me.
No, the manufacturer can set the price it wants to sell to the retailer,
but why should they set the price the retailer *must* sell to the
consumer. If I buy 10 widgets for $1 each, and for some reason decide
to sell them for 50 cents each, why should the seller have any say in
the matter? If the manufacturer doesn't want to sell me any more, fine,
but once I own something the previous owner doesn't get to tell me what
to do with it. The *only* place in law where that isn't true is with
restrictive covenants on real estate deeds, and real estate law is
separate and different from regular trade laws.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Larry Bud
Of course it's free enterprise. As a retailer, you're free to buy
from the OEM or not. There's absolutely no coercion going on.
Free enterprise means that you're allowed to freely set the terms on
the product you sell, and others are feel to accept those terms or
not. The buyer doesn't have some inherient right to buy a product
according to terms the seller doesn't agree to. THAT is not free
enterprise.
Larry Bud
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > George Grapman wrote:
> > > But is is hardly free enterprise to force them to sell at a certain
> > > price.
> > Sure it is. I am a manufacturer and decide to set a floor price. If you
> > don't agree you don't buy from me.
>
> No, the manufacturer can set the price it wants to sell to the retailer,
> but why should they set the price the retailer *must* sell to the
> consumer.
Why "should" they, or why should they be ALLOWED to? There's a
difference.
They should be allowed to because, with free enterprise, you should be
allowed to conjure up whatever contract you want, regardless of how
ridiculous it might seem to others. Whether or not someone agrees to
that contract will depend on the free market.
> If I buy 10 widgets for $1 each, and for some reason decide
> to sell them for 50 cents each, why should the seller have any say in
> the matter?
Because in your contract with your supplier, you agreed that they have
a say. If you didn't like those terms, you should find another
supplier.
> but once I own something the previous owner doesn't get to tell me what
> to do with it.
They do if you agreed to that in your contract with your supplier.
Rod Speed
> On Jul 5, 11:39 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>> Larry Bud wrote:
>>> On Jul 4, 2:46 pm, funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Read all about it,
>>
>>> Liberal to English dictionary:
>>> Sell your product for more than your competition: Price gouging
>>> Sell your product for the same as your competition: Price fixing
>>> Sell your product for less than your competition: Dumping
>>
>>> What's a businessman to do?
>>
>> The court is allowing manufacturers to set a minimum retail price.
>> Hardly sounds like free enterprise.
>
> Sure it is. Why shouldn't a company be allow to set terms on how their product is sold?
Because that stops operations flogging stuff for the lowest margins.
> If the public and the retailers don't like it, they won't buy it.
> Nobody is forcing anybody to do ANYTHING in cases like these.
You're forcing some to pay more than they would have to pay without it.
Larry Bud
> Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 11:39 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> >> Larry Bud wrote:
> >>> On Jul 4, 2:46 pm, funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> Read all about it,
>
> >>> Liberal to English dictionary:
> >>> Sell your product for more than your competition: Price gouging
> >>> Sell your product for the same as your competition: Price fixing
> >>> Sell your product for less than your competition: Dumping
>
> >>> What's a businessman to do?
>
> >> The court is allowing manufacturers to set a minimum retail price.
> >> Hardly sounds like free enterprise.
>
> > Sure it is. Why shouldn't a company be allow to set terms on how their product is sold?
>
> Because that stops operations flogging stuff for the lowest margins.
Oh yes, #3 on my Liberal to English Dictionary:
> >>> Liberal to English dictionary:
> >>> Sell your product for more than your competition: Price gouging
> >>> Sell your product for the same as your competition: Price fixing
> >>> Sell your product for less than your competition: Dumping
> > If the public and the retailers don't like it, they won't buy it.
> > Nobody is forcing anybody to do ANYTHING in cases like these.
>
> You're forcing some to pay more than they would have to pay without it.
Nobody is being forced to pay anything. To buy is optional.
With your "reasoning", letting the retailer set a price rather than
the buyer will always be "forcing" someone to pay more than they would
otherwise.
nada
extends to the court appointees.
who speaks for the people?
Rod Speed
>>>>>> Read all about it,
>>>>> Liberal to English dictionary:
>>>>> Sell your product for more than your competition: Price gouging
>>>>> Sell your product for the same as your competition: Price fixing
>>>>> Sell your product for less than your competition: Dumping
>>>>> What's a businessman to do?
>>>> The court is allowing manufacturers to set a minimum
>>>> retail price. Hardly sounds like free enterprise.
>>> Sure it is. Why shouldn't a company be allow to set terms on how their product is sold?
>> Because that stops operations flogging stuff for the lowest margins.
> Oh yes, #3 on my Liberal to English Dictionary:
Then why did you ask the question ?
>>>>> Liberal to English dictionary:
>>>>> Sell your product for more than your competition: Price gouging
>>>>> Sell your product for the same as your competition: Price fixing
>>>>> Sell your product for less than your competition: Dumping
>>> If the public and the retailers don't like it, they won't buy it.
>>> Nobody is forcing anybody to do ANYTHING in cases like these.
>> You're forcing some to pay more than they would have to pay without it.
> Nobody is being forced to pay anything. To buy is optional.
If they choose to buy it, you are forcing them to pay more than they would otherwise have to pay for
it.
> With your "reasoning", letting the retailer set a price rather than the buyer
> will always be "forcing" someone to pay more than they would otherwise.
Nope, they get a choice on which retailer they use.
That doesnt happen if the retailers arent allowed to set the
price and the lowest price is set by the manufacturer instead.
Rod Speed
> funnybu...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Read all about it, here: http://Muvy.org
> The partnership of business and government or corporatism apparently extends to the court
> appointees.
Fantasy.
> who speaks for the people?
Those that get elected, stupid.
booker
> Of course it's free enterprise. As a retailer, you're free to buy from
> the OEM or not. There's absolutely no coercion going on.
And as a voter I'm free to vote for my own best interests. It is not in my
interests to allow producers to engage in price-fixing.
SpammersDie
<ra...@vt.edu> wrote in message news:f6luds$4b8$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> George Grapman wrote:
>
>> > But is is hardly free enterprise to force them to sell at a certain
>> > price.
>
>> Sure it is. I am a manufacturer and decide to set a floor price. If you
>> don't agree you don't buy from me.
>
> No, the manufacturer can set the price it wants to sell to the retailer,
And the retailer's agreement to a floor is part of that price.
jmh
I think if we take the view that the retailer is "taking
owership" of the item when they buy at wholesale the above
makes some sense. If we assume the retailer really has not
interest in owning the item but is really acting in more of
an agency capacity for the manufacture then it looses a lot
of it's force.
There are a lot of nuances in all these economic relationships
that all fall into the question so I don't think there's
such a thing as one answer.
jm
bear...@cruller.invalid
George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Sure it is. I am a manufacturer and decide to set a floor price.
No it isn't. Once you have sold something, you no longer own it. You
surrender your rights over it, except through force, and I mean FORCE of
legislation. Thus, "copyright" laws. Your idea of "free enterprise" only
works within a suffocating miasma of civil regulation, backed by
government force: *exactly* what people like you and your friends have
been whining about since at least the sixties. It has NEVER had anything
to do with freedom of anything. It's the old "war is peace" stupidity,
repackaged. Although after George W. Bush, I genuinely believe a
majority of Americans will buy if you wrap it like a burrito in a
chinese-made flag.
George Grapman
tickets on their web site with a commission charged on each end. Since
the tickets have a bar code that is scanned at the gate the team simply
cancels one ticket on their computer and generates a new one. Both
seller and buyer can do the sale at home and the buyer is assured that
it is a legitimate ticket.
The Yankees, under the guise of wanting to end scalping, have told
season ticket holders that if they resell anywhere but on the team site
they will lose their season ticket rights.They are even checking
locations on stubhub and craigslist.
The N Y attorney-general has sued saying that under NY law once you
but something you own it and have the right to do what you want with it
as long as no laws are violated.
Not sure of NY law but in CA resale is unrestricted unless it is done
on stadium property,
clams casino
>
>
>No it isn't. Once you have sold something, you no longer own it. You
>surrender your rights over it, except through force, and I mean FORCE of
>legislation.
>
Since when? Evidently you've never purchased any software (think
Micro$oft).
Don Klipstein
>On Jul 6, 1:33 pm, r...@vt.edu wrote:
>> In misc.consumers.frugal-living George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > George Grapman wrote:
>> > > But is is hardly free enterprise to force them to sell at a certain
>> > > price.
>> > Sure it is. I am a manufacturer and decide to set a floor price. If you
>> > don't agree you don't buy from me.
>>
>> No, the manufacturer can set the price it wants to sell to the retailer,
>> but why should they set the price the retailer *must* sell to the
>> consumer.
>
>Why "should" they, or why should they be ALLOWED to? There's a
>difference.
>
>They should be allowed to because, with free enterprise, you should be
>allowed to conjure up whatever contract you want, regardless of how
>ridiculous it might seem to others. Whether or not someone agrees to
>that contract will depend on the free market.
Apparently a libertarian does not have a problem with someone telling me
what I can do with my property as long as that someone is not the
government.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
SpammersDie
"Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrnf8vl8...@manx.misty.com...
The price of your freedom to do as you please with your property is my
freedom to do as I please with my property.
Which, in this case, includes my freedom not to sell you my property unless
you sign a separate agreement not to resell said property below a floor
price.
You are, of course, free to seek an alternate supplier whose asking price
does not include that agreement. Free in the legal sense, anyway. There's no
guarantee that such a supplier will exist.
Larry Bud
> In article <_9CdnY4nB9B36hPbnZ2dnUVZ_v-dn...@comcast.com>,
>
> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > Sure it is. I am a manufacturer and decide to set a floor price.
>
> No it isn't. Once you have sold something, you no longer own it. You
> surrender your rights over it, except through force, and I mean FORCE of
> legislation.
Nonsense. These retailer freely enter into a contract with the
manufacturer that sets a floor price.
Larry Bud
Sure, you can vote in politicians that want to overturn freely entered
contracts if you wish. If you're into that eliminating freely entered
contracts, that is.
Larry Bud
A price on a product is not force if the buyer isn't forced into
purchasing it.
> > With your "reasoning", letting the retailer set a price rather than the buyer
> > will always be "forcing" someone to pay more than they would otherwise.
>
> Nope, they get a choice on which retailer they use.
So what? The price is the price, and if you think setting a price on
a product of which you have no obligation to buy is force, your
thought process is severely flawed.
Larry Bud
> In article <1183743685.260625.105...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Larry
As a retailer, you're the one who freely entered into a contract with
the OEM that deemed how the product is to be sold. If you didn't want
to follow those terms, perhaps you shouldn't have signed on the dotted
line.
Free entered into contracts are not force. Laws that the government
passes regulating commerce is.
Rod Speed
Irrelevant to whether you are forcing them to pay
more than they would otherwise have to pay for it.
>>> With your "reasoning", letting the retailer set a price rather than the buyer
>>> will always be "forcing" someone to pay more than they would otherwise.
>> Nope, they get a choice on which retailer they use.
> So what?
So you are just plain wrong, as always.
> The price is the price, and if you think setting a price on
> a product of which you have no obligation to buy is force,
I dont.
> your thought process is severely flawed.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
booker
> On Jul 6, 6:34 pm, booker <inva...@invalid.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:38:31 -0700, Larry Bud wrote:
>> > Of course it's free enterprise. As a retailer, you're free to buy
>> > from the OEM or not. There's absolutely no coercion going on.
>>
>> And as a voter I'm free to vote for my own best interests. It is not in
>> my interests to allow producers to engage in price-fixing.
>
> Sure, you can vote in politicians that want to overturn freely entered
> contracts if you wish.
I have no problem with that at all stopping any abuse of pre-sale
contracts to circumvent consumer-protection laws. If that bothers you,
then that tells me that you're either an unethical businessman or an
unwise consumer.
> If you're into that eliminating freely entered contracts, that is.
So you believe that if a mobster hit man freely enters into a contract to
commit a murder, the law should require that he fulfill that contract and
punish him if he fails?
Don Klipstein
I find complete lack of government interference to be a "throw them to
the wolves" approach that allows those most willing and able to be bullies
to make the rules by having the gold.
Thankfully, Western democracies balance unfettered free enterprise
against forcing players to "play fair". Thus, we have such things as
antitrust laws. So, when it comes down to deciding where to draw the
line, I think we need laws voiding restrictions on:
1) Property only being available with covenants restricting reselling
price,
2) Property only being available with covenants against advertising
selling price (common with designer clothes for example).
I find goods being only available from suppliers with restrictions on
selling price or advertising of selling price to inhibit competition.
Especially when the goods come from monkey-see-monkey-do industries, and
in recent decades common practice in business in the USA has been to
follow herds.
Competition has been a common arguing point in favor of free enterprise.
As a result, I favor laws that interfere with business practices in ways
that *favor* competition on basis of price and value-for-price and
advertizing outreach *over* anticompetitive bullying practices by
established players that "make the rules by having the gold".
Some examples of what I see as bullying practices:
1) A couple decades ago Microsoft capitalizes on an Apple mistake, and
then imposes the "Microsoft Tax" to maintain its dominance. That meant
that computer sellers who sold any computers with Microsoft operating
systems had to pay Microsoft not on basis of per-copy-of-Microsoft-OS, but
per computer sold whether the computer had a Microsoft OS, a non-Microsoft
OS or none at all.
2) Several years ago there was a somewhat significant federal court case
over 3M charging higher prices to supply "Scotch Tape" to retailers who
stocked tape products of 3M's competitors. Sadly, anticompetition won
that side!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
bear...@cruller.invalid
Larry Bud <larryb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > Sure it is. I am a manufacturer and decide to set a floor price.
> >
> > No it isn't. Once you have sold something, you no longer own it. You
> > surrender your rights over it, except through force, and I mean FORCE of
> > legislation.
>
> Nonsense. These retailer freely enter into a contract with the
> manufacturer that sets a floor price.
Nonsense yourself. Then you are not selling a product. You are not
selling anything. You may be renting. You may be leasing. You are
probably engaged in much less savory "market" activity. But you are not
selling. It is the same old sorry and basically irrational economic
3-card monty that gave us the repressive, suffocating and otherwise
laughable idea of "intellectual property rights" manifest today, and
which at the other end, feed directly into racketeering, conspiracy and
confidence schemes.
Your "ideas" are hardly original. There are thousands of people who
acted upon them rotting in prisons as I write.
bear...@cruller.invalid
clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
Did I mention "COPYRIGHT" laws? Maybe you missed that.
I have no software on any of my computers that is not bought and paid
for, btw.
bear...@cruller.invalid
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> I find complete lack of government interference to be a "throw them to
> the wolves" approach that allows those most willing and able to be bullies
> to make the rules by having the gold.
>
> Thankfully, Western democracies balance unfettered free enterprise
> against forcing players to "play fair". Thus, we have such things as
> antitrust laws. So, when it comes down to deciding where to draw the
> line, I think we need laws voiding restrictions on:
>
> 1) Property only being available with covenants restricting reselling
> price,
>
> 2) Property only being available with covenants against advertising
> selling price (common with designer clothes for example).
I would add greatly expanded fair use laws.
BTW, I sang Yankee Doodle Dandy in public today. Who do I have to pay?
bear...@cruller.invalid
"SpammersDie" <x...@xx.xx> wrote:
> The price of your freedom to do as you please with your property is my
> freedom to do as I please with my property.
>
> Which, in this case, includes my freedom not to sell you my property unless
> you sign a separate agreement not to resell said property below a floor
> price.
>
> You are, of course, free to seek an alternate supplier whose asking price
> does not include that agreement. Free in the legal sense, anyway. There's no
> guarantee that such a supplier will exist.
Which of course paves the way for monopolies. Great idea. Lousy use of
tax dollars. Burn monopolies and execute their leaders.
Anthony Matonak
...
> I have no software on any of my computers that is not bought and paid
> for, btw.
You can't buy software. If you read the fine print, you'll find that
you have only purchased the right to use the software for a period
of time. The software never belongs to you and, often, you do not
have the right to make copies (even backups) or the right to sell it.
Anthony
Don Klipstein
>On Jul 5, 2:06 pm, Regie_Satanis <recalcitran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 5, 8:16 am, Larry Bud <larrybud2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 4, 2:46 pm, funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > > Read all about it,
>>
>> > Liberal to English dictionary:
>> > Sell your product for more than your competition: Price gouging
>> > Sell your product for the same as your competition: Price fixing
>> > Sell your product for less than your competition: Dumping
>>
>> > What's a businessman to do?
>>
>> can't compete?
>
>Yes. You just can't win.
Businesses need to gain upon their competition by delivering more for
less, by innovating for better efficiency or by producing better products.
I do take a bit of a dim view of the "dumping" accusation, unless
"dumping" is being done by an 80,000 pound gorilla onto small new
competitors and actually reasonably factual.
Worse still I consider restrictions of selling price or advertising of
selling price as condition of reselling of purchased property, or supply
price being higher if the reseller deals with competitors to the supplier.
As has been explained to me, the free market is supposed to be good due
to competition.
It appears to me counter to that for recent-past-winners to use bullying
tactics rather than delivering more for less, such as the "Microsoft Tax"
that Microsoft imposed upon computer sellers dealing with them after they
gained upon an Apple mistake in the 1980's.
This planet's history of prosperous democracies has fairly notably a
"balancing act" between "laissez faire" and "forcing the big players to
play fair". I see lack of nations improving upon that!
I surely think non-government entities should have less right than a
democratically-elected government has to tell me what I can and cannot do
with my own property, especially as in any upper or lower limits of
reselling price or advertising of reselling price!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>> >>>> Larry Bud wrote:
>> >>>>> On Jul 4, 2:46 pm, funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>>>> Read all about it,
>> >>>>> Liberal to English dictionary:
>> >>>>> Sell your product for more than your competition: Price gouging
>> >>>>> Sell your product for the same as your competition: Price fixing
>> >>>>> Sell your product for less than your competition: Dumping
>> >>>>> What's a businessman to do?
>> >>>> Hardly sounds like free enterprise.
>> >>> Sure it is. Why shouldn't a company be allow to set terms on how
>> >>> they won't buy it. Nobody is forcing anybody to do ANYTHING in cases
>> >>> like these.
>> >> thereby limiting competition.
>>
>> > The retailer is free to buy or not to buy the product from the
>> > manufacturer according to the contact the two have signed. If the
>> > retailer doesn't like the terms, they shouldn't have signed the
>> > contract.
>>
>> But is is hardly free enterprise to force them to sell at a certain
>> price
>
>from the OEM or not. There's absolutely no coercion going on.
>
>product you sell, and others are feel to accept those terms or not. The
>buyer doesn't have some inherient right to buy a product according to
>terms the seller doesn't agree to. THAT is not freeenterprise.
I find lack of freedom when seller has legal means of telling me what I
can do with my own property. I see low incidence of government doing
worse by telling me that I cannot use my property to pollute the air,
pollute the water supply, or reduce competition in a market.
When total freedom means those having the gold get to make the rules and
get to be 800,000 pound gorillas and are then allowed to squash
competition by requiring resellers of their products to in any way
disfavor any of the competition that is supposed to be a major argument in
favor of a free market, then I see need for government interference to
make major players play fair and to make the market a "kind of level
playing field" where competition means gains for those who can deliver
more for less as opposed to allowing bullying tactics by 80,000 pound
gorillas!
Among prosperous democracies nowadays, have any lacked socialism and
commerce regulations in the past 30 years?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
That gets into intellectual property issues, especially copyright.
I surely find need for some debate and refinements as to what a
purchaser "owns" and what is "fair use".
I certainly believe that someone buying software with a "single user"
license should have no abridgement of freedom to make all necessary backup
copies and to transfer the "working copy" among "working" computers as
long as all "working" computers only work 1 at a time and all only work at
the registered user's home, or when under the supervision of and carried
by the "licensed user" when the user travels.
However, I see need for USA to do some loosening of its copyright laws
from their recent status successfully requested by "Big Business".
I just wish enough Americans would get up off their keisters and cast
their votes at all opportunites while considering this! And not only to
vote, but also to be less distracted by snake-oil-sellers who claim lack
of need of taxes to support pork spending, those who promise to send more
of the pork spending "your way", and those who "push buttons" by claiming
that we need to "protect the flag" (despite unpopularity of flag-burners),
and those who claim that we need to "protect the institution of marriage"
from me marrying my life partner of my same gender that I fell in love
with a couple decades ago.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
I suspect whoever composed that would have to make a turn to greed to
claim any restriction upon all Americans singing, whistling, humming,
*whatever*,.. on such an American-patriotic song!
I hope that song is not as restricted as "Happy Birthday" is and managed
to continue to be! (Ever notice rerstaurants doing singing for birthday
celebrations tend to use something else?) Snopes.com even mentions that
song having extended lingering copyright protection!
Meanwhile, I have low fear of ill effects of anyone singing "Happy
Birthday" within a home of someone having a birthday or of someone who has
a guest having a birthday. For that matter, I consider safety of that
being only increased in the less-Libertarian USA "state" that is
less-libertarian in the direction of protecting privacy of
individuals/families from fellow non-government-entities. That one is
California!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
zappo
Just because someone claims that, doesnt make it correct, legally.
Rod Speed
No one, its out of copyright.
clams casino
>I would add greatly expanded fair use laws.
>
>BTW, I sang Yankee Doodle Dandy in public today. Who do I have to pay?
>
>
Someone paid you to sing?
clams casino
But you can not legally sell it or use it on another computer, even
though you bought / paid for it.
(You don't own that software that you "bought".)
krw
clam.com says...
doesn't mean it's true.
--
Keith
Larry Bud
> >> >allowed to conjure up whatever contract you want, regardless of how
> >> >ridiculous it might seem to others. Whether or not someone agrees to
> >> >that contract will depend on the free market.
>
> >> Apparently a libertarian does not have a problem with someone telling me
> >> what I can do with my property as long as that someone is not the
> >> government.
>
> >As a retailer, you're the one who freely entered into a contract with
> >the OEM that deemed how the product is to be sold. If you didn't want
> >to follow those terms, perhaps you shouldn't have signed on the dotted
> >line.
>
> >Free entered into contracts are not force. Laws that the government
> >passes regulating commerce is.
>
> I find complete lack of government interference to be a "throw them to
> the wolves" approach that allows those most willing and able to be bullies
> to make the rules by having the gold.
IOW, "Almighty government, please, PROTECT ME FROM MYSELF!"
I still find it incredible that allowing people to make decisions on
their own is viewed by some as something that can't possibly be
allowed to happen, that they somehow know better than the person
making that decision.
Larry Bud
> In article <WERji.154219$Sa4.89...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
So now you want government to force people to manufacture and sell
their product according to your terms? You know what eventually
happens? People will say "fuck this" and stop manufacturing
altogether.
Who's stopping you from becoming a supplier and filling the demand?
Monopolies can ONLY exist when Government gets involved and
artificially manipulates the market.
clams casino
>
>
>So now you want government to force people to manufacture and sell
>their product according to your terms? You know what eventually
>happens? People will say "fuck this" and stop manufacturing
>altogether.
>
>Who's stopping you from becoming a supplier and filling the demand?
>
>Monopolies can ONLY exist when Government gets involved and
>artificially manipulates the market.
>
>
>
Yep - The government needs to stop regulating toothpaste, dog food,
tires, children's toys, etc and let the free market decide what's best.
What's good for Darwin is good for everyone.
Who needs government regulation?
clams casino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>But you can not legally sell it or use it on another computer, even
>>though you bought / paid for it.
>>(You don't own that software that you "bought".)
>>
>>
>>
>As Zappo said above, just because the software EULA states that,
>doesn't mean it's true.
>
>
>
?? You obviously belong in the Bush camp - laws are for everyone else.
krw
clam.com says...
Well, It seems we're both right!
--
Keith
Les Cargill
<snip>
>
> As has been explained to me, the free market is supposed to be good due
> to competition.
>
That's the kindergarten version of it. The free market *as opposed to
royal charter corporation monopolies* is better because it
exhibits less rent seeking. Smith's Hand was about the market being
a more effective signalling mechanism than centrally controlled
"royal" charters.
Whether or not IP law is good or bad depends on a dynamic
balance of the rent seeking part of it versus the "stimulates
innovation" part of it.
> It appears to me counter to that for recent-past-winners to use bullying
> tactics rather than delivering more for less, such as the "Microsoft Tax"
> that Microsoft imposed upon computer sellers dealing with them after they
> gained upon an Apple mistake in the 1980's.
>
I think that viewing a $3k (in 1983 dollars ) PC versus a $400-today
Best Buy Special in terms of gained power and function tells the tale.
The Microsoft Tax was probably worth it.
Oddly enough, this was largely driven by people doing a
Twister game *around* IP law. But it would not have much happened
without a Windows product as a standardizer.
> This planet's history of prosperous democracies has fairly notably a
> "balancing act" between "laissez faire" and "forcing the big players to
> play fair". I see lack of nations improving upon that!
>
We increasingly see the big players declining to compete and
instead, whinge to Gummint about "fairness". That's meeting
rent-seeking with rent-seeking.
> I surely think non-government entities should have less right than a
> democratically-elected government has to tell me what I can and cannot do
> with my own property, especially as in any upper or lower limits of
> reselling price or advertising of reselling price!
>
And that is fine, so long as you do not beleive
that ordinary people are capable of entering into contracts.
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> bearc...@cruller.invalid wrote
>> SpammersDie <x...@xx.xx> wrote
>>> The price of your freedom to do as you please with your
>>> property is my freedom to do as I please with my property.
>>> Which, in this case, includes my freedom not to sell you my
>>> property unless you sign a separate agreement not to resell
>>> said property below a floor price.
>>> You are, of course, free to seek an alternate supplier whose asking
>>> price does not include that agreement. Free in the legal sense,
>>> anyway. There's no guarantee that such a supplier will exist.
>> Which of course paves the way for monopolies. Great idea.
>> Lousy use of tax dollars. Burn monopolies and execute their leaders.
> So now you want government to force people to manufacture
> and sell their product according to your terms?
Nope, just stop them being able to control the retail price.
> You know what eventually happens? People will say
> "fuck this" and stop manufacturing altogether.
How odd that that never happened with every single modern first
world country that chose to outlaw retail price maintenance.
> Who's stopping you from becoming a supplier and filling the demand?
> Monopolies can ONLY exist when Government gets
> involved and artificially manipulates the market.
Pig ignorant lie. Have a look at the history of Standard Oil etc.
Rod Speed
Presumably you actually are that stupid.
The problem arises when every single manufacturer attempts to enforce the retail
price at which their goods can be sold, so the normal retailer has no choice on that.
You're so stupid that you cant manage to grasp the basics like that.
Rod Speed
> bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
>
>> In article <nGKji.8354$aP2...@newsfe16.lga>,
>> clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> bear...@cruller.invalid wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> No it isn't. Once you have sold something, you no longer own it.
>>>> You surrender your rights over it, except through force, and I
>>>> mean FORCE of legislation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Since when? Evidently you've never purchased any software (think
>>> Micro$oft).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Did I mention "COPYRIGHT" laws? Maybe you missed that.
>>
>> I have no software on any of my computers that is not bought and paid
>> for, btw.
>>
>>
> But you can not legally sell it or use it on another computer, even
> though you bought / paid for it.
> (You don't own that software that you "bought".)
Thats just plain wrong in any modern first world country.
Just because MS claims that, doesnt make it legally accurate.
bear...@cruller.invalid
Larry Bud <larryb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Who's stopping you from becoming a supplier and filling the demand?
Way ahead of you.
bear...@cruller.invalid
Larry Bud <larryb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> IOW, "Almighty government, please, PROTECT ME FROM MYSELF!"
Not at all: protect me from people like you.
> I still find it incredible that allowing people to make decisions on
> their own is viewed by some as something that can't possibly be
> allowed to happen, that they somehow know better than the person
> making that decision.
Every decision has consequence. Live with it.
bear...@cruller.invalid
clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
If you read the eula on *some* of the software for which I have paid,
you will find that I do not own it. Why? Because of copyright law and
"intellectual property" law. This is not a free market, as a matter of
fact. Free markets are as mythical as unicorns. The only question is
"who regulates this market?"
bear...@cruller.invalid
Anthony Matonak <antho...@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
See: open source, freeware, etc. The eulas on those are as different
from each other and commercial software as mercury is from pluto.
ra...@vt.edu
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:33:48 +0000 (UTC), ra...@vt.edu in sci.econ
> >
> > No, the manufacturer can set the price it wants to sell to the retailer,
> > but why should they set the price the retailer *must* sell to the
> > consumer. If I buy 10 widgets for $1 each, and for some reason decide
> > to sell them for 50 cents each, why should the seller have any say in
> > the matter? If the manufacturer doesn't want to sell me any more, fine,
> > but once I own something the previous owner doesn't get to tell me what
> > to do with it. The *only* place in law where that isn't true is with
> > restrictive covenants on real estate deeds, and real estate law is
> > separate and different from regular trade laws.
> I think if we take the view that the retailer is "taking
> owership" of the item when they buy at wholesale the above
> makes some sense. If we assume the retailer really has not
> interest in owning the item but is really acting in more of
> an agency capacity for the manufacture then it looses a lot
> of it's force.
If the retailer goes out of business does the inventory revert
to the manufacuturer? If not, then the retailer is hardly
an agent. The bank, or court, probably auctions off the content
and inventory for whatever price they can get. Or should the
manufacturer control that price as well?
> There are a lot of nuances in all these economic relationships
> that all fall into the question so I don't think there's
> such a thing as one answer.
Actually, I'm not overly concerned with this new turn of court
ruling. It seems the big retailers (e.g. WalMart) have plenty
of clout to negotiate their own terms. It does seem anti-competitive
to me if smaller retailers don't get to fully own their inventory,
and make no mistake, that is what this court ruling is saying.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Dennis
>In article <slrnf90nn...@manx.misty.com>,
> d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>> I find complete lack of government interference to be a "throw them to
>> the wolves" approach that allows those most willing and able to be bullies
>> to make the rules by having the gold.
>>
>> Thankfully, Western democracies balance unfettered free enterprise
>> against forcing players to "play fair". Thus, we have such things as
>> antitrust laws. So, when it comes down to deciding where to draw the
>> line, I think we need laws voiding restrictions on:
>>
>> 1) Property only being available with covenants restricting reselling
>> price,
>>
>> 2) Property only being available with covenants against advertising
>> selling price (common with designer clothes for example).
>
>I would add greatly expanded fair use laws.
>
>BTW, I sang Yankee Doodle Dandy in public today. Who do I have to pay?
In a fair world, anyone who heard you sing. ;-)
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
jmh
confessed to the world saying:
> In misc.consumers.frugal-living jmh <jmh...@apex.localdomain> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:33:48 +0000 (UTC), ra...@vt.edu in sci.econ
>> >
>> > No, the manufacturer can set the price it wants to sell to the retailer,
>> > but why should they set the price the retailer *must* sell to the
>> > consumer. If I buy 10 widgets for $1 each, and for some reason decide
>> > to sell them for 50 cents each, why should the seller have any say in
>> > the matter? If the manufacturer doesn't want to sell me any more, fine,
>> > but once I own something the previous owner doesn't get to tell me what
>> > to do with it. The *only* place in law where that isn't true is with
>> > restrictive covenants on real estate deeds, and real estate law is
>> > separate and different from regular trade laws.
>
>> I think if we take the view that the retailer is "taking
>> owership" of the item when they buy at wholesale the above
>> makes some sense. If we assume the retailer really has not
>> interest in owning the item but is really acting in more of
>> an agency capacity for the manufacture then it looses a lot
>> of it's force.
>
> If the retailer goes out of business does the inventory revert
> to the manufacuturer? If not, then the retailer is hardly
> an agent. The bank, or court, probably auctions off the content
> and inventory for whatever price they can get. Or should the
> manufacturer control that price as well?
If the manfacturer is supplying the credit for the items and
those are the collateral for that credit then it's not clear if
the retailer is acting as agent or separate entity.
I agree that there are lots of what-ifs we can toss around but
the point I'm raising is that the relationship is not so clearly
defined as one might wish. I think the question of manufacturers
setting a retail floor price is one of those glass is half full-
half empty cases.
>> There are a lot of nuances in all these economic relationships
>> that all fall into the question so I don't think there's
>> such a thing as one answer.
>
> Actually, I'm not overly concerned with this new turn of court
> ruling. It seems the big retailers (e.g. WalMart) have plenty
> of clout to negotiate their own terms. It does seem anti-competitive
Absolutely and retailers might still want to set floor prices
both to protect these large brick an morter retailers as well
as the smaller outlets from the internet retailers.
Also, I think in the early day's of anti-trust the laws were
applied in a fimilar manner to protect the smaller local
retailers from being under sold by both emerging large
national retailing organizations, cataloge retailers and
from the manufacturer vertically integrating into the local
markets and underselling the small retailers.
> to me if smaller retailers don't get to fully own their inventory,
> and make no mistake, that is what this court ruling is saying.
True, but as is the case with everything else, we don't get
to have full ownership rights. We get a set collection of
rights that are associated with some object which is what
defines what ownership means.
jmh
jmh
>> On Jul 5, 11:39 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>> Larry Bud wrote:
>>>> On Jul 4, 2:46 pm, funnybunnyf...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Read all about it,
>>>
>>>> Liberal to English dictionary:
>>>> Sell your product for more than your competition: Price gouging
>>>> Sell your product for the same as your competition: Price fixing
>>>> Sell your product for less than your competition: Dumping
>>>
>>>> What's a businessman to do?
>>>
>>> The court is allowing manufacturers to set a minimum retail price.
>>> Hardly sounds like free enterprise.
>>
>> Sure it is. Why shouldn't a company be allow to set terms on how their product is sold?
>
>
>> If the public and the retailers don't like it, they won't buy it.
>> Nobody is forcing anybody to do ANYTHING in cases like these.
>
Yes and it's possible that's allowing only internet-based, no support,
no local presances, no easy to check reputation (for a lot of people
who don't understand the internet) which could result in the market
for those products to largely disappear.
Is a dying market more competitive and a flurishing one?
jmh
Rod Speed
Nope, not possible.
> Is a dying market more competitive and a flurishing one?
Usual silly question.
Chois...@search.aol.com
news:1183648569.0...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> Liberal to English dictionary:
> Sell your product for more than your competition: Price gouging
> Sell your product for the same as your competition: Price fixing
> Sell your product for less than your competition: Dumping
>
> What's a businessman to do?
conservative-to-english translation:
raise prices when the "competition" raises prices = "Free Market Competition"
Chois...@search.aol.com
news:1183905204.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> Who's stopping you from becoming a supplier and filling the demand?
>
> Monopolies can ONLY exist when Government gets involved and
> artificially manipulates the market.
historically that's often true in the very longterm (often multiple generations). also
government loves a vacuum, so if consumers don't push for laws, the "big n families"
will. btw, competing governments are themselves the same as "free enterprise". you
may have to start a revolution or overthrow a ruling class, but if you're not afraid of
limits, and willing to take the intiative, you'll have your own country.
libertarianism is just one among many other utopian isms.
Chois...@search.aol.com
5F86DD.215...@news.supernews.com:
> In article <1183905204.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Larry Bud <larryb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Who's stopping you from becoming a supplier and filling the demand?
the good ol boys club of suppliers all the way from the mining, extractive stage.
aka "no man is an island".
Chois...@search.aol.com
8E5FB7.225...@news.supernews.com:
> BTW, I sang Yankee Doodle Dandy in public today. Who do I have to pay?
the rnc, if any part of your clothes were red white or blue.
Chois...@search.aol.com
news:slrnf910h...@manx.misty.com:
> I hope that song is not as restricted as "Happy Birthday" is and managed
> to continue to be!
happy approximately 9 months after f***day to you, happy approximately 9 months
after f***day to you, happy approximately 9 months after f***day dear whoever, happy
approximately 9 months after f***day to you.
Chois...@search.aol.com
news:6mh593das1pjmt8vh...@4ax.com:
> In a fair world, anyone who heard you sing. ;-)
but first the plaintiff will have to produce proof that the sounds said defendant emitted
resulted in a work that could be labeled by reasonable men as "singing". hire a good
corporate intellectual property lawyer if you ever decide to sing in public. or offshore
your singing.
Chois...@search.aol.com
> It seems the big retailers (e.g. WalMart) have plenty
> of clout to negotiate their own terms.
right, relative size is the danger for the smaller business. large retailers put a small
supplier out of business by squeezing that supplier after the retailer knows they've
become (too) large customer of the supplier.
but when big suppliers make agreements with big retailers the pricefixing result is
similar to a monopoly. (eg, tax software, vacuums, laptops, ad nauseum)
Chois...@search.aol.com
news:1183743511.8...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> The buyer doesn't have some inherient right to buy a product
> according to terms the seller doesn't agree to.
if the buyer or seller dislikes the voter influenced terms of contracts, then buyer or
seller is free to choose to buy or sell under another (possibly less democratically
representative) government.
Chois...@search.aol.com
news:46911281$0$20562$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> Don Klipstein wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> As has been explained to me, the free market is supposed to be good due
>> to competition.
>>
>
> That's the kindergarten version of it.
yes. reality is more complicated.
>The free market *as opposed to
> royal charter corporation monopolies* is better because it
> exhibits less rent seeking. Smith's Hand was about the market being
> a more effective signalling mechanism than centrally controlled
>"royal" charters.
>
> Whether or not IP law is good or bad depends on a dynamic
> balance of the rent seeking part of it versus the "stimulates
> innovation" part of it.
although by implication "free market" absolutists respond that both/either economic
efficiency and resulting real freedom are irrelevant. "free marketers" believe that "free
trade" is more important than better standards of living, cultural and technological
progress, real human freedom, less violent civilization, more people receiving some
happiness as the result of pursuit of their happiness, etc.
>> It appears to me counter to that for recent-past-winners to use bullying
>> tactics rather than delivering more for less, such as the "Microsoft Tax"
>> that Microsoft imposed upon computer sellers dealing with them after they
>> gained upon an Apple mistake in the 1980's.
>>
>
> I think that viewing a $3k (in 1983 dollars ) PC versus a $400-today
> Best Buy Special in terms of gained power and function tells the tale.
> The Microsoft Tax was probably worth it.
what was apple's mistake that would have lead to 1980's-equiv-$3k pcs now?
> Oddly enough, this was largely driven by people doing a
> Twister game *around* IP law. But it would not have much happened
> without a Windows product as a standardizer.
DOS?
i think commodores were considered the best PC then, but i guess they were too $$.
next was NEXT, but were they ever sold?
>> This planet's history of prosperous democracies has fairly notably a
>> "balancing act" between "laissez faire" and "forcing the big players to
>> play fair". I see lack of nations improving upon that!
>>
>
> We increasingly see the big players declining to compete and
> instead, whinge to Gummint about "fairness". That's meeting
> rent-seeking with rent-seeking.
>
>> I surely think non-government entities should have less right than a
>> democratically-elected government has to tell me what I can and cannot do
>> with my own property, especially as in any upper or lower limits of
>> reselling price or advertising of reselling price!
>>
>
> And that is fine, so long as you do not beleive
> that ordinary people are capable of entering into contracts.
anyone who can scratch an 'x' (with witness?) *can* sign a contract. but big messy
contracts will mess up most ordinary people.
Les Cargill
There is a utopian "version" of Libertarianism, but it's not
even the dominant strain. Libertarianism by its very
nature is empirical and rights based - hardly the stuff of Utopias.
Much more pragmatist.
--
Les Cargill