Re:Antitrust lawsuit says Apple and Amazon colluded to raise...
by lupire on Wednesday November 09, 2022 @02:53PM
(#33536951)
That latter part is to prevent resale, which is not related to retail price and manufacturer's wholesale price.
Re:Antitrust lawsuit says Apple and Amazon colluded to raise...
by scottcodie on Wednesday November 09, 2022 @03:24PM
(#33537337)
It depends on the buy back price for if this scheme benefits customers or not. Lets say I'm nabisco and I tell grocers that instead of putting my product on sale and potentially take a loss that I'll buy back that product. The risk of selling the product is on nabisco rather than the grocer and the grocer may stock more nabisco goods because of it. However, if the terms are not favorable then consumers should be more skeptical in agreeing to those terms depending on their risk tolerance. Extreme examples of this do often fall into anti-trust.
Re:Antitrust lawsuit says Apple and Amazon colluded to raise...
by dylan604 on Thursday November 10, 2022 @01:23AM
(#33542966)
Just a short time ago, there was a thread where someone posted a link to the infamous story about Vlasic (IIRC) and the extremely cheap large bucket of pickles that Walmart (the retailer) forced Vlasic (the maker) to provide. The store mandated the maker. Not the other way around. So yes, sometimes the grocer does the telling.
Lots of companies refuse to let their products be sold at a lower price in order to protect their prices. There was one software company in particular that wrote into the contract that you could not resell the software to 3rd party. You could only sell it back to the software company. This was specialty software, and licenses averaged around $40k per seat.