Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Friday, September 17, 2010

Resale Price Maintenance: Consignment Agreements, Copyrighted or Patented Products and the First Sale Doctrine

Posted by D. Daniel Sokol

Herb Hovenkamp (Iowa Law) has posted Resale Price Maintenance: Consignment Agreements, Copyrighted or Patented Products and the First Sale Doctrine.

ABSTRACT: The rule of reason adopted for resale price maintenance in the Supreme Court’s Leegin decision, which upset the century old Dr. Miles rule of per se illegality, requires some reconsideration of a number of issues about antitrust treatment of RPM. Under the old per se rule, bona fide “consignment” agreements were not covered by Section 1 of the Sherman Act at all because there was said to be no qualifying “agreement” between the supplier and the dealer. Rather the dealer was simply said to be acting as an agent of the seller. However, insofar as RPM produces competitive dangers, such as those occasioned by powerful dealers, these harms do not seem to depend on whether the transfer from the supplier to the dealer was a sale or a consignment.

Secondly, while Leegin took RPM in one direction, applying a rule of reason to conduct that had previously been unlawful per se, the Supreme Court’s Quanta Computer decision went in the other direction, restoring an invariant rule prohibiting resale price maintenance requirements from being enforced by means of patent infringement suits.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2010/09/resale-price-maintenance-consignment-agreements-copyrighted-or-patented-products-and-the-first-sale-.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef013486fe27e8970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Resale Price Maintenance: Consignment Agreements, Copyrighted or Patented Products and the First Sale Doctrine:

Comments

Secondly, while Leegin took RPM in one direction, applying a rule of reason to conduct that had previously been unlawful per se, the Supreme Court’s Quanta Computer decision went in the other direction, restoring an invariant rule prohibiting resale price maintenance requirements from being enforced by means of patent infringement suits.

PLR Reports

Posted by: laurajames | Nov 20, 2010 9:25:29 AM

Post a comment