Comments for My Distribution Law

Comment on More Evidence that California May No Longer Follow the Per Se Rule in Vertical Pricing Fixing Cases by Edgar Odio

Edgar Odio — Thu, 16 May 2013 18:32:15 +0000

Mauro, is the 20% market share presumption of dominance applicable for all type of conducts in Brazil? Isn´t 40% a more acceptable standard?

Comment on Non-Payment of Patent Royalties Doesn’t Render Sales “Unauthorized” by Patent Exhaustion Doctrine Does Not Protect Farmers Who Replant Patented Seeds

Patent Exhaustion Doctrine Does Not Protect Farmers Who Replant Patented Seeds — Tue, 14 May 2013 22:27:09 +0000

[...] covered the patent exhaustion doctrine previously – see, for example, here, here, and [...]

Comment on More Evidence that California May No Longer Follow the Per Se Rule in Vertical Pricing Fixing Cases by Mauro Grinberg

Mauro Grinberg — Thu, 09 May 2013 13:27:02 +0000

Howard, This is good to know about here in Brazil because the antitrust agency here decided in the SKF case that, if a company has more than 20% of a relevant market, there is a legal presumption of dominance and the per se rule is applicable. I don´t agree with this conclusion but some arguments must be collected. Best regards

Comment on Free Product Distribution or Discounted Component Distribution Likely Does Not Exhaust Patent Rights by ericgoldman

ericgoldman — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:21:14 +0000

In the copyright context, compare the 9th Circuit’s UMG v. Augusto ruling

Comment on Can My Supplier Refuse to Sell Products to Me? by Howard Ullman

Howard Ullman — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 20:22:48 +0000

I think your scenario raises potential issues, but I don’t have enough facts to be certain. Also, I intend this blog to be an educational resource, but I can’t offer specific legal advice through it, for a variety of reasons — for one thing I can’t do work or offer particular opinions before running conflicts checks. If you’re interested in specific advice, feel free to e-mail me.

Comment on Can My Supplier Refuse to Sell Products to Me? by steve

steve — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:50:33 +0000

we are a roofing company, a supplier lobbies architects to specify their product on a large job. The company only allows two companies to bid the project where they control the bid pricing. You approach the supplier and ask them to sell to you so that you can bid on the job and they refuse, further, they won’t allow you to get certified to install the product because they only want to deal with the two companies already certified to do the installation. The jobs were for a public entity like a County Purchasing there is no Department which requires strict competitive rules which need to be followed to ensure that there is no price fixing. There could be several problems with this as I see it. What would you think? Are there problems here?

Comment on Antitrust Suits Increased 48% in 2012 by A Record "Flurry" of Antitrust Suits

A Record "Flurry" of Antitrust Suits — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 17:36:26 +0000

[...] Antitrust Suits Increased 48% in 2012 [...]

Comment on Competition Law, Policy and the Apparent Oversupply of Lawyers in the U.S. by From the Law of Supply and Demand File: Law School Applications Plummet

From the Law of Supply and Demand File: Law School Applications Plummet — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:52:29 +0000

[...] I covered competition issues relating to lawyer oversupply here. [...]

Comment on iPad Note-taking Apps for Lawyers Reviewed by Howard Ullman

Howard Ullman — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 03:29:04 +0000

Thanks. Hopefully with the site update this issue has been fixed.

Comment on Supreme Court Grants Cert in Watson Pay-For-Delay Case by The Continuing Saga of Reverse Payment Patent Litigation

The Continuing Saga of Reverse Payment Patent Litigation — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:16:47 +0000

[...] previously covered Watson and [...]