...
首页> 外文期刊>The Antitrust Bulletin >RPM as exclusion: Did the U.S. Supreme Court stumble upon the missing theory of harm?
【24h】

RPM as exclusion: Did the U.S. Supreme Court stumble upon the missing theory of harm?

机译:将RPM排除在外:美国最高法院是否偶然发现了缺失的伤害理论?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Resale price maintenance-the practice whereby upstream wholesalers or manufacturers fix the prices at which their products can be sold at retail-has been a matter of economic and legal debate for at least a century. Until very recently in the United States, resale price maintenance (RPM) had been per se illegal, albeit with an expanding set of qualifications. In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a manufacturer of "proprietary medicines, prepared by means of secret methods and formulas, and identified by distinctive packages, labels, and trademarks," could not fix wholesale and retail sales prices for its products. The court found that this practice, later to be called RPM,
机译:维持转售价格-上游批发商或制造商确定其产品零售价的做法-至少一个世纪以来,有关经济和法律的争论一直存在。直到最近,在美国,转售价格维持(RPM)本身一直是非法的,尽管其资格范围不断扩大。 1911年,美国最高法院裁定,“通过秘密方法和配方制备并通过独特包装,标签和商标进行标识的专有药品”制造商无法确定其产品的批发和零售价格。法院发现,这种做法(以后称为RPM)

著录项

  • 来源
    《The Antitrust Bulletin》 |2008年第4期|967-986|共20页
  • 作者

    Timothy J. Brennan;

  • 作者单位

    University of Maryland, Bal-timore County, Baltimore, MD, and Resources for the Future, Washington, DC;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号