In other words, if you're selling computers and trying to corner the market, and you price manipulation benefits your business at the sake of others in your market; that's not okay.

However, if you're selling oil, which there really is absolutely no difference between Exxon, or Mobil; Standard, or Premium; then it's okay to cohesively manipulate the market and squeeze the little people for all you can get.

Well, there you go!! Throw innovation out the window unless all of the companies in any specific market innovate their product together. They need to show that there really is no definitive difference between their products, so they too can manipulate their market to maintain their portfolios.

Karl Marx would be so proud of our Supremes!

"Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of monetary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of destruction has cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed. And why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of Bourgeois property; on the contrary they have become too powerful for these conditions by which they are fettered, and so as soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of Bourgeois society, endanger the existence of Bourgeois property."

I guess our only hope is that future Justices will have the moral presence to always rule against price-fixing on a case-by-case approach. The Courts have way too much power, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it. If congress were to try to pass a legislation to lessen their power, they would just write opinions saying that congress didn't really mean that.

When I was kid, manufacturers of many items for retail sale set what was call "fair trade" prices. Retailers who wished to carry these products agreed not to sell the products for less. My Dad was a rep for some of these firms which is how I know about them. Business competed on other basis, like service and selection,. However, once that practice was banned, price became the only real basis for competition. That is why companies like Wall-Mart have been able to lower prices to the benefit of consumers. the manufactureres have done OK as well.

I also recall that during the hearings to confirm Justice Roberts, he made it very clear that he intended to respect presedent as set by previous courts. I guess he had his fingers crossed when he said that.

I can't believe we keep going backwards in this country. Monopolies will make the life of the average person horrible. This will also doom the Rico act. What power will the middle class have.

Just a correct about the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. This act was written by Sen. John Sherman, OH in 1890. It passed in the Senate 51 - 1, and in the House 242 - 0, and President Harrison signed it into law.

<The Rule of Reason from 1904>

n a seminal 1904 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government's suit under the Sherman Antitrust Act to dissolve the Northern Securities Company (a railroad holding company) in State of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Company. Then, in 1911, after years of litigation, the Court found Standard Oil Company of New Jersey in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act because of its excessive restrictions on trade, particularly its practices of eliminating competitors by buying them out directly and by driving them out of business by temporarily slashing prices in a given region.

In this historic decision, the Supreme Court established an important legal standard termed the rule of reason. It stated that large size and monopoly in themselves are not necessarily bad and do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Rather, it is the use of certain tactics to attain or preserve such position that is illegal.

Again, just another insult to the average persons intelligence.