Scott Fine wrote:
> Jack writes:
>
> >> Newborn said the judge was citing ``naked market allocation
> >> that could be prosecuted under either civil or criminal laws,
> >> depending on the circumstances of the meeting.''
> >> He noted that the Sherman antitrust act prohibits market
> >> allocation and that companies have paid hundreds of millions of
> >> dollars in fines in recent years for violating it.
> >
> >Can anyone explain to me what "market allocation", as referred to above,
> >means?
>
> "I take the Windoze market, you take the Unix market." (Translation: "You
> take the upper east side, including the hookers and the smack,
> I'll take from
> Bayonne to Chicago. Or else!"
So, it differs from a "distributorship" (not sure if that's the right word)
scenario because two companies are making the agreement, not just one parent
company deciding who has what market? In other words, let's say parent
company A writes an agreement with someone, stating that the someone will
cover area XYZ, exclusively. That's legal. But if two separate companies
decide how to split an area, it's "market allocation". Right?
Confused puppy in need of clarity (likes nice walks on the beach),
Jack
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
