Distribution, Competition, and Antitrust / IP Law

Archives for July 2014

The Senate is Considering Minimum Resale Pricing for Contact Lenses

NPR has the story.  Under federal law, of course, RPM is subject to the Rule of Reason.  Apparently the Senate is interested because a large portion of the contact lens market is subject to the restrictions.

It is unclear to me whether the manufacturers have truly nationwide policies or whether they have excepted those states that still treat — or may treat — minimum RPM as per se unlawful.

Update: After hearing a bit more about this, it sounds like these are Colgate unilateral pricing policies (no agreement; if retailers don’t abide, they don’t receive more product).  But I’m not entirely sure.

Northern District of California Addresses Functional Discounts, Price Discrimination Claims

Chrysler 1959

Chrysler 1959 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In Mathew Enterprise, Inc. v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95522 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2014) (Freeman, J.), the court dismissed certain Robinson-Patman Act price discrimination claims and allowed others to proceed, and in so doing addressed the contours of the functional availability defense.

The plaintiff is a car dealership. It alleged that Chrysler grants “volume growth” incentives which function as a subsidy and amount to roughly $700 per vehicle sold by a qualifying dealer. The plaintiff alleged that Chrysler allowed competing dealerships to be established in plaintiff’s area but did not adjust the formula by which plaintiff could qualify for volume growth incentives. That is, plaintiff’s sales objectives continued to be based on its past year’s sales without consideration of the reduction of sales expected due to the addition of new dealerships in the market.

In addition to its allegations about volume growth incentives, the plaintiff further alleged that Chrysler provided disguised reductions in the net prices of vehicles to a competing dealership in the form of below-market rent subsidies which were not also provided to plaintiff.

On Chrysler’s motion to dismiss, the court held that plaintiff had adequately alleged that the volume growth incentives were not functionally available to it. “Defendant’s incentive program could not be applied in an even-handed manner, Plaintiff alleges, because its formula as applied to Plaintiff took into account Plaintiff’s prior year sales, while the formulas put in place for the [competing] dealerships did not, because neither new dealer had prior-year sales.” The court also held that plaintiff had plausibly alleged an effect on competition in the form of sales diversions. “Although Plaintiff acknowledges that other factors contributed to its declining sales, such as increased competition and geographic convenience to customers, those others factors are not more plausible than Plaintiff’s allegations of diverted sales.”

As to the rental subsidies, however, the court held that a rental agreement itself is not a commodity within the reach of the Robinson-Patman Act, and that the plaintiff had not plead facts that would permit the court to infer that the rental agreement in some way was tied to the volume of cars sold. Therefore, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the rental agreement was a “disguised discount.”

A World Without Patents?

Patents are only for the old machine

(Photo credit: Alexandre Dulaunoy)

Planet Money’s recent podcast interviews two economists who advocate for the ultimate patent law reform: the abolition of patents.

They argue that patents inhibit innovation.  For example, the Wright Brothers supposedly secured a number of patents on their early airplane design — which didn’t work very well and which stalled (pun intended) airframe development in the U.S. for a number of years.  The industry migrated to France to avoid the U.S. patents.

What about pharma, you might ask (as did I?)  Are pharma companies really going to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into new drugs if there is no patent protection?

Even these economists seem to concede the answer is “no,” so they propose an alternative — the government would pay for initial R&D.  When the government finds a promising new molecule, it would put it out to bid to pharma companies.  The lowest bidder would pay for the expensive clinical trials but would then receive a royalty on all drug sales for some number of years.

It’s an interesting idea — although frankly it doesn’t sound that different from a patent.  Or at least it’s not much different from a patent associated with a duty to license at some fair and reasonable rate.

There’s another issue — not mentioned in the podcast: if the U.S. gets rid of patents, but other countries don’t, won’t that distort all the economics?  R&D may migrate elsewhere, and the supply and price of goods (those subject to foreign patents) in the U.S. may be adversely affected.

It’s an interesting idea to think about — but one that as a practical matter isn’t going to go anywhere.  At least not for many years.

Happy Fourth of July

English: fireworks seen across the at Washingt...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For your weekend reading, here’s an interesting article by Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times: “Inequality is Not Inevitable.”

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE
%d bloggers like this: