Comments on: Evaluating Leegin

By: Leegin Legislation Update | TRUTH ON THE MARKET

Leegin Legislation Update | TRUTH ON THE MARKET — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:33:35 +0000

[...] believe both of these statements are, at best, misleading, and that Leegin was correctly decided. From an antitrust perspective, the issue of whether RPM should be afforded per se treatment is [...]

By: TRUTH ON THE MARKET » Chemerinksy’s Theory of the Roberts’ Court’s Antitrust Jurisprudence

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:13:16 +0000

[...] the Court got it wrong and that RPM actually harms consumers.Â I disagree and believe Leegin was correctly decided.Â But to argue that the Court got there by favoring business over consumers isÂ not accurate, and [...]

By: D. Menthe

D. Menthe — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:25:27 +0000

Of course, it is a curious thing for this Court to overturn such longstanding precedent, while feigning judicial humility. Congress has had nearly a century to amend the statute if it chose to do so, and never has done so. Whether or not the Dr. Miles rule makes economic sense, and I have no reason to disagree with the fine voices on this blog who argue it does not, our law has never endorsed economic analysis per se as a justification for overturning very well established statutory interpretations.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 14:59:34 +0000

Leegin Analysis…

The Supreme Court – clearly unconcerned about my vacation plans – issued its decision in Leegin Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc. several weeks ago. When the Court released its decision I was here.

The Court overturned the per se rule for minimum resale …

By: M. Hodak

M. Hodak — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:26:46 +0000

Let me offer an outsider’s congratulations, too, on these write-ups. Not as weighty as a VC endorsement, but it’s all I got.

By: Keith Sharfman

Keith Sharfman — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:38:58 +0000

A truly superb post!

By: The Volokh Conspiracy

The Volokh Conspiracy — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:51:23 +0000

Further Leegin Analysis on Truth on the Market:…

Two excellent analyses on Truth on the Market of the Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin last week that overturned the Dr. Miles case on the practice of retail price maintenance. Josh Wright is …

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 03:20:05 +0000

Thanks Thom. And you are in good company overemphasizing the classic dealer free-riding story!

A recent exposition of the Klein/Murphy promotional services argument (or “vertical externality” story, as economists sometimes call it) for RPM and other vertical restraints appears in my article with Ben Klein on slotting allowances (forthcoming in JLE next month):

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=773464

That explanation, I think, is fairly accessible to a general audience and is not too technical (though there is a bit of math!) … but perhaps I will post a layman’s summary here as well if that would be helpful.

By: Thom

Thom — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:30:33 +0000

Excellent post, Josh. I’m probably guilty of overemphasizing the free rider story. It’s an easy story to tell, and it comports with my own experience. (Being cheap, I frequently go to fancy stores to try things and then attempt to purchase them at discount outlets.) If you get a chance, perhaps you could give us a laymen’s summary of the Klein/Murphy argt. Perhaps it should be its own blog post: “The RPM Explanation Justice Breyer Hasn’t Seen.”