Subject: Re: pricing and the Antitrust Laws

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 13:16:38 -0500

I hate to throw a wet towel on the "pricing" chat, but most countries
including the U.S., have very strict laws and matching penalties for what
could be considered as any attempt to fix prices, yes even at our level of
business.  The Robinson-Patman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Sherman Act are
designed to preserve "free and unfettered competition" as the rule of trade.
 This means that companies (unlike OPEC) can't discuss pricing with each
other or they will be in violation of these laws even if they don't actually
conspire to fix prices of  products.  As an example, if a smith whose
business is making iron fence read an earlier e-mail post on what another
smith in his area charges for fencing, and increased his price to that
amount, and a customer found out, and complained that they had been harmed by
this price fixing both smiths would go to jail.  The fine could be as much as
$100,000 and three years in prison. I'm not sure how the "we're just artists"
would play, but why risk it.   
Please be careful what you put in print regarding pricing. 
Mike Schermerhorn

---

From: Tom Vincent <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 21:05:18 -0600 (CST)

Sure, but just use the directions in the post Lee re-sent. The lower 
price goes to the most efficient shop and thats how the market works. If 
you want to worry about antitrust, just visit your local Consumer Credit 
Counseling office and they'll give you very similar pricing advice. If 
you raise your prices to match a competitor then you're a poor 
businessperson, we all know the less expensive gets the bid. Tom

---

From: "Szucs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 11:39:15 -0500

On Mar 23,  1:16pm, [email-masked] wrote:
> conspire to fix prices of  products.

	But this relates directly to issues of defacto monopoly, does it not?
	I don't believe that a group of smiths coming together to agree on
	pricing would constitute an antitrust situation.  You'd have to
	have nearly all the smiths "conspiring" before a case could be made,
	or at least enough to form a block that could effectively begin
	putting other smiths out of business.

	If the antitrust laws applied as you say, I'd imagine that entities
	like cooperatives would be either illegal or highly regulated, which
	I don't think they are.

	Also, black smithing is such a tiny portion of the economy I'm not
	at all sure there'd be any US attorney willing to bother prosecuting
	such a case unless there was some set of wierd extenuating
circumstances
	that would somehow make it a career builder.

	I'm not a lawyer, so my understanding may be completely faulty.

>As an example, if a smith whose
> this price fixing both smiths would go to jail.

	Huh?  Now this I find impossible to believe.  Competitors are always
	monitoring each other's pricing and setting their accordingly.

	Price fixing involves CONSPIRACY between the parties in question.

	If you're right about this I'd be very shocked.  Not surprised,
	mind you, given the general nature of the corpus juris in
	America these days, but something doesn't smell right about the
	info in this post.   Are you a lawyer, Mike?  Just wondering.

	-Andy V.