Changes

In ''Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc.'', 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007), a 5-4 [[U.S. Supreme Court]] overturned nearly 100 years of precedent in [[antitrust law]] and held that [[resale price maintenance]] is lawful if based on a reasonable justification.  This decision overruled the precedent of ''[[Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park and Sons Co.]]'', 220 U.S. 373 (1911), in which the Court had established the rule that it is [[per se]] illegal under § 1 of the [[Sherman Act]], 15 U.S.C. § 1, for a manufacturer to agree with its distributor to set the minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer's goods.  

In ''Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc.'', 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007), a 5-4 [[U.S. Supreme Court]] overturned nearly 100 years of precedent in [[antitrust law]] and held that [[resale price maintenance]] is lawful if based on a reasonable justification.  This decision overruled the precedent of ''[[Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park and Sons Co.]]'', 220 U.S. 373 (1911), in which the Court had established the rule that it is [[per se]] illegal under § 1 of the [[Sherman Act]], 15 U.S.C. § 1, for a manufacturer to agree with its distributor to set the minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer's goods.  

The Court relied on respected economic analysts to conclude that vertical price restraints can have procompetitive effects and thus should be judged by the [[rule of reason]].  Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] wrote the decision and was joined by the [[conservative]] wing of the Court.

The Court relied on respected economic analysts to conclude that vertical price restraints can have procompetitive effects and thus should be judged by the [[rule of reason]]:

 

:"Minimum resale price maintenance can stimulate interbrand competition among manufacturers selling different brands of the same type of product by reducing intrabrand competition among retailers selling the same brand. This is important because the antitrust laws' primary purpose ... is to protect interbrand competition."  

 

Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] wrote the decision and was joined by the [[conservative]] wing of the Court.

Advocates of [[stare decisis]], including the [[liberal]] wing of the Court, complained about the overturning of this longstanding precedent.

Advocates of [[stare decisis]], including the [[liberal]] wing of the Court, complained about the overturning of this longstanding precedent.

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

[[category:Antitrust]]

[[category:Antitrust]]