Apple Affected by LCD Price Fixing by LG, Sharp, Chunghwa

[GoCubsGo]

Wow, this is pretty big. Kind of hard for electronics producers to take a hit like that during these economic times.

I think you're alone in this thought. Who in their right mind will have pity for these companies? In hard economic times they got caught. They tried to **** you, me, and anyone else buying their crap over. I don't feel one bit sorry for them. The punishment the execs got was nothing more than a handful of cash over 90 days. How long have they been price fixing? I'm guessing longer than 90 days.

To hell with companies that do this and get caught. None of them will go out of business as a result of their fines.

 

[mwickens]

So if all computer makers decide to price fix laptops, and make them start at $5000, and all towers start at $4000, you think that's OK?

Why not a million dollars, if they can just set the price to whatever they want and people will continue to buy them? If you think the only thing keeping companies from getting together to fix prices at ridiculous levels is the existence of a law against it, well, you're wrong. The free market won't allow that to happen, except maybe briefly, and in isolated pockets of the economy.

For more info on why price fixing should not be illegal, see:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14311&news_iv_ctrl=1221

 

[gnasher729]

Why not a million dollars, if they can just set the price to whatever they want and people will continue to buy them? If you think the only thing keeping companies from getting together to fix prices at ridiculous levels is the existence of a law against it, well, you're wrong. The free market won't allow that to happen, except maybe briefly, and in isolated pockets of the economy.

For more info on why price fixing should not be illegal, see:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14311&news_iv_ctrl=1221

That page is about a very different "price fixing". It is about a company that sells its product to various dealers, and asks all dealers to charge the same price to end users. If we assume that the company charges all its dealers the same wholesale price, any price difference to the consumer would come from some dealer taking less margin than others. The product itself would still be competing with other products. As a consumer, you wouldn't benefit from competition between individual dealers, you would still benefit from competition between one manufacturer and all its dealers, and another manufacturer and all the dealers of that manufacturer.

What this court case was about, was different manufacturers agreeing between themselves on an artificially high price, which increased all their profits by removing competition from the market.

One word, since the article you quoted talks about the Bush administration saying that laws allowing the first kind of price fixing are "outdated": I think there are many, many people who wish that the Bush administration had worked on slightly more "outdated" principles, and the world economy would be in much less of a mess today.

 

[matticus008]

The "gross margin" of a product is the difference between what you pay, and what it costs Apple to sell that one item to you, that is parts, production, transport, sales, warranties, replacing broken items and so on.

Not quite. The gross margin is the difference between the retail price and the cost of goods sold. That is parts, production, labor. It does not include distribution, sales, warranty, or service costs. It also does not include, as you pointed out, R&D, marketing, and Apple's operations and capital costs.

The "bill of materials" is something completely different. That is what you would have to pay if you bought all the parts that make up say an iMac and throw them all on a big pile. It is a very meaningless number.

Again, not quite. The BOM is the actual cost of the constituent parts--not what a third party would pay for the pile of parts, which is almost always a higher amount.

 

[mwickens]

That page is about a very different "price fixing". It is about a company

It's not about any specific case. It's about a principle, and it uses one case as an example.

What this court case was about, was different manufacturers agreeing between themselves on an artificially high price, which increased all their profits by removing competition from the market.

Did they forcibly prevent others from entering the market? If not, I don't see the problem. They set their price and people agreed to pay it.

I think there are many, many people who wish that the Bush administration had worked on slightly more "outdated" principles, and the world economy would be in much less of a mess today.

You're right, lots of people think that. But many others are trying to educate them about how government intervention -- instigated during the Bush administration and the ones preceding it -- is the cause of today's mess. I highly recommend this video.

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

585 million, actually that's about 1/1400 of the 700 billion

I was thinking like a Congressman for a sec, so easy to mix up these millions and billions.

 

[matticus008]

Did they forcibly prevent others from entering the market? If not, I don't see the problem. They set their price and people agreed to pay it.

Yes. They leveraged their collective market power in a collusive agreement to raise prices above the level of competition, for their collective gain and to the detriment of those not party to the agreement and their customers.

The only reason it is successful is because the suppliers moved in lockstep. Had one party raised prices on its own, it would have suffered a drop in sales to the others, negating the price increase. Working together, they preserved business and profitability unfairly.

It acts as a barrier to entry because a non-party, previously eligible for contracts at the level of natural competition, must now discount prices in order to draw business. This happens and is perfectly acceptable within the scope of fair competition. It is targeted destruction where there is price fixing.

 

[Michael CM1]

Why not a million dollars, if they can just set the price to whatever they want and people will continue to buy them? If you think the only thing keeping companies from getting together to fix prices at ridiculous levels is the existence of a law against it, well, you're wrong. The free market won't allow that to happen, except maybe briefly, and in isolated pockets of the economy.

For more info on why price fixing should not be illegal, see:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14311&news_iv_ctrl=1221

Did you not see the gas prices earlier this year? It was all done on "price speculation" in the stock market. People start investigating and LIKE MAGIC prices have dropped about $85/barrel.

If you think the economy should be uber-capitalistic without regulation, please don't get a job in the Treasury Department. Yikes.

 

[IJ Reilly]

This case almost certainly settled at this particular moment because the defendants knew they would not get such a good deal from the Obama administration. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice threatened industry with the comfy chair when it came to antitrust law violations. The penalties may look quite large, but with little doubt the industry got off easily, at least far more easily than they might have from a Justice Department that actually enforces antitrust law.

 

[Moler]

Why companies cannot talk to each other and set same prices of their products? What is a high price anyway? If it is high no one will buy their stuff and they will have to reduce the price or disappear. Or other companies will show up and take their business. That is a free market, not a government deciding on prices.

A large screen TV is not necessity for 99.9% of people. We are so indulged in wasting resources of this planet that our kids will despise us.
A part of my respect for Apple is that they are resisting this mass histeria to reduce their prices and actually use part of their profits to design products with minimal impact on the environment.

 

[SleepyHead157]

do I get a rebate? lol

 

[mwickens]

They leveraged their collective market power in a collusive agreement to raise prices above the level of competition, for their collective gain and to the detriment of those not party to the agreement and their customers.

"Market power" is not force. And it is power only to the extent that people still want and are able to buy what they're selling.

Of course they are doing it in pursuit of gains for themselves and yes, it is to the detriment of competitors and people who would rather pay less. But if you're going to outlaw that, you might as well go all the way and have a government bureaucrat dictate what the exact price is that doesn't give a company more profit than it "should" have and which doesn't "harm" its competitors too much.

 

[hiptobesquare]

Why companies cannot talk to each other and set same prices of their products? What is a high price anyway? If it is high no one will buy their stuff and they will have to reduce the price or disappear. Or other companies will show up and take their business. That is a free market, not a government deciding on prices.

A large screen TV is not necessity for 99.9% of people. We are so indulged in wasting resources of this planet that our kids will despise us.
A part of my respect for Apple is that they are resisting this mass histeria to reduce their prices and actually use part of their profits to design products with minimal impact on the environment.

Yeah, and you get to decide what is necessary for 99.9% of the people.

You can just decide prices for things, while you are at it.

In order for our kids not to despise us, do we need to live in a cave? will they love us then?

And CRT tubes, and previous tech was just so wonderful, compared to LCD screens.

Give it a rest. Every part of your premise is wrong.

People are free to decide what they want, and what is necessary. That is FREEDOM. IF other people elsewhere aren't free, they ideally SHOULD BE, and should look to that.
You don't get to tell them what you've decided. You obviously aren't capable of it.

Collusion to fix prices is illegal, and immoral. The market forces work out the appropriate price, not just a cabal of producers in ANY industry. The government was doing it's job on this one, for once, and protecting the people from fraudulent, anti-trust corporate collusion. CRIMINAL activity. Usually the government is too caught up in regulation of non-criminal activity, and making things difficult for everyone.

IF we don't use our resources, and use them wisely, our kids won't have the time to resent us, for their having to work for subsistence living, or wage slavery to pay the state. They'll resent us for saddling them with burdens we weren't willing to bear, and stupidity like yours.

Put that emotionalism aside and learn something about commerce and economics.

 

[IJ Reilly]

"Market power" is not force. And it is power only to the extent that people still want and are able to buy what they're selling.

Of course they are doing it in pursuit of gains for themselves and yes, it is to the detriment of competitors and people who would rather pay less. But if you're going to outlaw that, you might as well go all the way and have a government bureaucrat dictate what the exact price is that doesn't give a company more profit than it "should" have and which doesn't "harm" its competitors too much.

Nonsense. Collusion to fix prices (AKA, cartels) have been illegal under law in every advanced nation for a century or more. This kind of behavior has long been recognized as destructive to free market capitalism. The only reason I can imagine why you'd have such airy views of this is because you're unfamiliar with the history of price fixing.

 

[alphaod]

No. S-IPS panels are more expensive because they're actually more expensive. As I recall, the price fixing was in the lower end of the market in TN and MVA panels.

I prefer to blame the manufacturer than myself for paying the premium

 

[matticus008]

"Market power" is not force.

No. Market power is by definition economic force.

And it is power only to the extent that people still want and are able to buy what they're selling.

Not the issue. People would still want and be able to buy what they were selling if the companies didn't conspire to fix prices.

Of course they are doing it in pursuit of gains for themselves and yes, it is to the detriment of competitors and people who would rather pay less. But if you're going to outlaw that

Are you just trolling at this point, or do you really not see the difference? What's outlawed is the intentional agreement to manipulate the market. They're welcome to raise their prices whenever they like, so long as they allow the unmolested market to decide whether or not to continue paying that price.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Why companies cannot talk to each other and set same prices of their products? What is a high price anyway? If it is high no one will buy their stuff and they will have to reduce the price or disappear. Or other companies will show up and take their business. That is a free market, not a government deciding on prices.

No, that is companies creating a "virtual monopoly," which is what true price fixing is. When companies collude to set a certain price it takes the consumer equation out of the market and skews the price/demand ratio.

Take Apple for example. It needed screens for it's iPod. Now if every manufacturer gets together and says "let's all charge $X for 2-3" LCD screens," then they have just taken away Apple's bargaining power as a consumer because every manufacturer has secretly agreed to charge the same price. Apple has no choice but to pay the artificially inflated (not due to real demand) price. That in turn, of course, gets pass on to iPod buyers.

That is different than if Sharp saw what LG was charging in publicly available price memo and independently decided to increase its prices. In that situation, Apple would still have bargaining power because Sharp would not know if LG might offer Apple a better price. The price, therefore, would be set by market demand, and not by the two companies colluding.

 

[MrCrowbar]

I miss CRT displays. I've even seen some widescreen 720p models in the 40" range ad for $700, and that was in 2006.

LCDs are starting to approach the picture quality of good CRTs (contrast, viewing angle, colors, reaction time) but usually the electronics inside the TVs (or the bad breadcast signal) ruins it with stuttering, interlaced video (only looks ok on TVs.

It's like being stuck in the 80s where CRT TVs were expensive.
It might be partly because TVs are so expensive that people download all their movies and watch them on the computer.

 

[coffey7]

The price of Apple's flat panels was the factor for me not buying one. Crazy prices.

 

[rustedshut]

Holy crap, that is one hell of a fine!

 

[VoR]

Wonder how long it'll take for them to get caught again

 

[rmc4139]

The Free Market in its purest form is a beautiful thing indeed. However, events like this make me thankful for government intervention.
We really do need regulation, and any libertarian suggesting otherwise is naive. I like to think of it as the comparison between alcohol consumption in the US vs. European countries. Europe has a lower drinking age but fewer alcoholics and fewer alcohol related deaths. If we lowered the drinking age, it would be chaos. Societies build themselves upon specific guidelines and it is generally catastrophic to alter them, with the exception of civil rights, etc.
Established economies cannot simply bounce into a free market without companies abusing their freedom. The dog is trained on a leash.

 

[kaiwai]

Maybe Sharp will offer discounts on a new Macbook / Mackbook Pro to those they helped rip off.

OK, it's a dream, but ...

How about before opening yout mouth you read the article:

"Based on the article, Apple was only affected between September 2005 and December 2006 when the company used Sharp's LCDs for the iPod's screen. "

Therefore, Apple was unaffected by the collusion in regards to MacBook/MacBook Pro and the rest of their line. IIRC they use Samsung for their LCD supplier.

 

[julohan]

no chage.

This lawsuit will have no affect on the price. They may drop but not because of the lawsuit. They have been going in court over a couple years on this issue. So, as soon as they were initially brought to court the fixed pricing would had change, such as 2 years ago lets say. So the price fixing has not been in effect for a while. This article is just about what the court decided. If that makes sense.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Except that a court didn't decide. The parties pled guilty and offered a settlement.