iPad 3 - Apple price fixing ?

[skubish]

Wirelessly posted

Ever bought a video game system? I recall buying a Super Nintendo in the early 90's for $129. Same price at every store in America the time. This is normal. If Nintendo colluded with Sega to set the Genesis at the same price, different story.

This is a stupid thread.

It's hardly a stupid thread. The original question is a perfectly reasonable one, and most of the people who have responded don't seem to know much about this area of law. Minimum pricing contracts between manufacturers and retailers (vertical price restraints) were illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act until very recently, when the US Supreme Court changed its mind and declared that such contracts were generally legal. The case was in 2007 (Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.). That's why you now see just abound major every brand of anything being excluded from sales in which a retailer offers, say, 15% off any item. Before 2007, you didn't see these exclusions nearly as often. You only saw them when the retailer wanted to leave certain brands out of such promotions. Now retailers have to leave tons of products out of promotions due to contracts with manufacturers that would not have been legal contracts prior to 2007.

On the whole, the ruling has been very bad for consumers. It was a 5-4 decision brought to you by our wonderful conservative court.

I don't know if this is entirely correct. Well before 2007 video games were sold at fixed prices set by each company(Nintendo, Sony, Sega).

Even with the Sherman act, the manufacterer can say you will sell my product at $X. If I catch you selling it for a different price, no more product for you! Same thing that happens with release dates. This has been legal well before 2007.

 

[mgear]

Wirelessly posted
Even with the Sherman act, the manufacterer can say you will sell my product at $X.

Again, that was not the case before 2007. You're simply incorrect.

As for the video game prices, those were likely suggested retail prices... not the same thing at all. Perhaps they were minimum advertised prices, but even that is not the same thing.

For some discussion, see http://www.luc.edu/law/academics/special/center/antitrust/pdfs/leegin_vertical.pdf

 

[Redjericho]

How can SAMs club sell the new iPads for $10 less than everyone else?

As long as apple gets its full profit, they don't care what other people sell it for.

Sell for $300, apple gets 200, store gets 100

Sell for 290, apple gets 200, SAMs club gets 90

 

[TheWheelMan]

That is quite debatable, considering how some consider the ipad to be its own market.

That's just it. In many respects it is its own market, but there is only one company in that market. Apple can't be accused of colluding with itself to fix the price in a market belonging solely to them.

 

[uscmba02]

It's hardly a stupid thread. The original question is a perfectly reasonable one, and most of the people who have responded don't seem to know much about this area of law. Minimum pricing contracts between manufacturers and retailers (vertical price restraints) were illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act until very recently, when the US Supreme Court changed its mind and declared that such contracts were generally legal. The case was in 2007 (Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.). That's why you now see just abound major every brand of anything being excluded from sales in which a retailer offers, say, 15% off any item. Before 2007, you didn't see these exclusions nearly as often. You only saw them when the retailer wanted to leave certain brands out of such promotions. Now retailers have to leave tons of products out of promotions due to contracts with manufacturers that would not have been legal contracts prior to 2007.

On the whole, the ruling has been very bad for consumers. It was a 5-4 decision brought to you by our wonderful conservative court.

Another way to look at it is the wonderful conservative court allowed companies like apple to level the playing field among all resellers if they choose. This would theoretically keep the EVIL big box stores from under cutting smaller retailers and driving them out of business simply because they can handle smaller margins.

But what it really did is allow companies like Apple who have a unique product manage their marketing as they see fit. One has the choice to buy an Apple product at the MAP or look elsewhere for their magical tablet.

 

[palpatine]

As long as apple gets its full profit, they don't care what other people sell it for.

Sell for $300, apple gets 200, store gets 100

Sell for 290, apple gets 200, SAMs club gets 90

They do care. High prices bolster its premium image and keep people coming to Apple stores, where they typically purchase more. That's why authorized resellers are only able to discount it a small amount.

Is it price fixing? No. Not under any law I know of. It is a contract. If stores don't want to participate, then they can fend for themselves in finding Macs to stock the shelves.

 

[ZipZap]

OP, did you call B&H?

They sell over the phone just not through their website. Three are others resellers where you could have avoided tax.....

macmall
abt
mac connection

I feel like you gave up way too quickly then came here to complain about a non-issue.

 

[Lindsford]

It's hardly a stupid thread. The original question is a perfectly reasonable one, and most of the people who have responded don't seem to know much about this area of law. Minimum pricing contracts between manufacturers and retailers (vertical price restraints) were illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act until very recently, when the US Supreme Court changed its mind and declared that such contracts were generally legal. The case was in 2007 (Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.). That's why you now see just abound major every brand of anything being excluded from sales in which a retailer offers, say, 15% off any item. Before 2007, you didn't see these exclusions nearly as often. You only saw them when the retailer wanted to leave certain brands out of such promotions. Now retailers have to leave tons of products out of promotions due to contracts with manufacturers that would not have been legal contracts prior to 2007.

On the whole, the ruling has been very bad for consumers. It was a 5-4 decision brought to you by our wonderful conservative court.

This is a stupid thread. OP was just butthurt he had to pay sales tax. If he really wanted to avoid it Macmall is legit.

Also if one was looking for an eReader, I feel like the Kindle would be the way to go anyways. specially if you like to read outside in sunlight. I know many who own both but to each his own.