John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wrote: >> What they mean is that the plaintiff must prove that if the defendant >> succeeded in driving him out of business with predatory pricing he would >> subsequently be able to recoup the money he lost selling below cost by >> selling at the elevated price he would be able to demand as a result of >> having disposed of his competitor. > > David Kastrup writes: >> That is not the only option for profiting from a crashing market. You >> can buy out your competitor at cheap prices, for example. You can get >> rid of him in another market segment where he is providing too much >> competition. And the investment need not be large: you can do this by >> announcing vaporware and thus freeze the customers' willingness to pay >> current market prices. > > You still must show that he could get back what he lost selling > below cost by selling above what would otherwise have been the > market price. That is what is meant by "recouping its investment in > below cost prices."
I don't see that they specify the manner of recouping, and I'd consider this too narrow for a reasonably effective definition of "predatory pricing". > David Kastrup writes: >> Oh, one could argue that they are competing with Wallace's >> purported business plan. If that were the only requirement, >> Wallace would have a reasonable chance to make it to trial. > > As far as I know Wallace has never actually offered anything for > sale. US courts do not deal in hypotheticals. Well, nobody claimed that Wallace's suit attempts failed in only one respect. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
