![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Good Morning and welcome to Hell
Jul. 2nd, 2007 08:30 amFor some value of hell equal to two days before Holiday and CON!
First, my machine takes about 10 minutes to boot because of all of the crap that is installed on it to keep it safe. It is very safe, since it takes so long to do anything. Then, I cannot get to my web-app, since every few weeks or so the designated service account loses the "Log on as a Service" permission. Not sure what security thing that is, neither the Windows admin group or the Information Security people can tell us why. After reseting the password (thereby forcing the permission), my web-apps starts working again.
Then I see that the company has found a NYT article on how the pro-business SCOTUS has decided it prefers sucking the dick of manufacturers over retailers by repealing a 96 year old law about "resale price maintenance agreements." See, it used to be automatic - if a manufacturer said you have to sell this for at least $X, Anti-trust could be invoked (I believe that Microsoft got hit with this one). So, a small company said, we want to sell it for $(X-n) and manufacturer said "no." Litigation ensues. The Supremes said well, it is not automatic anymore, we don't like that law from 1911, so this is now a case-by-case basis. The right-leaning bench just took another whack at Anti-trust laws.
From the article (dissenting opinion)
But Justice Breyer said in his dissent that the court had failed to justify the overturning of the rule, or that there was significant evidence to show that price agreements would often benefit consumers. He said courts would have a difficult time sorting out the price agreements that help consumers from those that harm them.
“The upshot is, as many economists suggest, sometimes resale price maintenance can prove harmful, sometimes it can bring benefits,” he wrote. “But before concluding that courts should consequently apply a rule of reason, I would ask such questions as, how often are harms or benefits likely to occur? How easy is it to separate the beneficial sheep from the antitrust goats?”
“My own answer,” he concluded, “is not very easily.”
I am sure![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
davedujour can guess which justices voted which way.
I am thinking this is not good for consumers. How often do companies really want to price something for significantly less than the "suggested retail price" versus the price-fixing that is likely to result. Just remember, big business is not altruistic. It is not out to help you and me. It is out to make more money. The more the better.
First, my machine takes about 10 minutes to boot because of all of the crap that is installed on it to keep it safe. It is very safe, since it takes so long to do anything. Then, I cannot get to my web-app, since every few weeks or so the designated service account loses the "Log on as a Service" permission. Not sure what security thing that is, neither the Windows admin group or the Information Security people can tell us why. After reseting the password (thereby forcing the permission), my web-apps starts working again.
Then I see that the company has found a NYT article on how the pro-business SCOTUS has decided it prefers sucking the dick of manufacturers over retailers by repealing a 96 year old law about "resale price maintenance agreements." See, it used to be automatic - if a manufacturer said you have to sell this for at least $X, Anti-trust could be invoked (I believe that Microsoft got hit with this one). So, a small company said, we want to sell it for $(X-n) and manufacturer said "no." Litigation ensues. The Supremes said well, it is not automatic anymore, we don't like that law from 1911, so this is now a case-by-case basis. The right-leaning bench just took another whack at Anti-trust laws.
From the article (dissenting opinion)
But Justice Breyer said in his dissent that the court had failed to justify the overturning of the rule, or that there was significant evidence to show that price agreements would often benefit consumers. He said courts would have a difficult time sorting out the price agreements that help consumers from those that harm them.
“The upshot is, as many economists suggest, sometimes resale price maintenance can prove harmful, sometimes it can bring benefits,” he wrote. “But before concluding that courts should consequently apply a rule of reason, I would ask such questions as, how often are harms or benefits likely to occur? How easy is it to separate the beneficial sheep from the antitrust goats?”
“My own answer,” he concluded, “is not very easily.”
I am sure
davedujour can guess which justices voted which way.I am thinking this is not good for consumers. How often do companies really want to price something for significantly less than the "suggested retail price" versus the price-fixing that is likely to result. Just remember, big business is not altruistic. It is not out to help you and me. It is out to make more money. The more the better.
