🚀 go-pugleaf

Alabama Petrofsky wrote:
[...]
> as a maximum vertical price fixing agreement, either of which would 
> be reviewed under the rule of reason. 

Well, well, well.

-----
48.1.  The State of Arizona wins.  The U.S. Supreme Court held that the 
defendants, the Medical Society, Foundation, and its members, engaged 
in price fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The 
Supreme Court held that price fixing is a per se violation of Section 1 
of the Sherman Act, i.e., once price fixing is found, no defenses may be 
raised to try to justify the price fixing.  The defendants argued that 
Section 1 only prohibited the fixing of minimum prices and did not 
prohibit the fixing of maximum prices, as set by the doctors in this 
case.  The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the
setting 
                                                
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

of a maximum price is really the setting of a minimum price if all
doctors 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

agreed to charge the maximum price. ...  The Supreme Court held that the 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

doctors� price fixing was a per se unreasonable restraint of trade that 
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Arizona v. Maricopa County 
Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332, 102 S.Ct. 2466, 73 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982)
-----

It held: 

-----
Respondents' maximum-fee schedules do not involve price-fixing in only a 
literal sense. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System,
Inc., 
441 U.S. 1, distinguished. As agreements among independent competing 
entrepreneurs, they fit squarely into the horizontal price-fixing mold.
-----

Hmmm.

regards,
alexander.