Here is a brief description of the Colgate Doctrine:
"Colgate doctrine is a conservative principle in antitrust law that allows a company to decide, on its own, with whom to do business. Any company may unilaterally terminate business with any other company without triggering a violation of the antitrust laws.
The Colgate doctrine is essential to the rights of businesses in a free market economy. This important doctrine was established by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Colgate Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919).
The Model Jury Instruction on this issue is as follows (ABA 2005):
A supplier may go beyond announcing its suggested resale prices. It may announce that it will stop dealing with any distributors that do not follow its suggestions. Announcing such a policy, and then terminating distributors that do not follow the suggested prices, does not by itself constitute a resale price-fixing agreement. This is so because simply announcing and enforcing such a policy does not constitute an agreement between the supplier and anyone else.
This is so even if distributors follow the suggested resale prices because they fear they will be terminated if they do not follow the suggestions. ... To establish [unlawful] resale price-fixing in such a situation, the plaintiff must show that the distributor reached an agreement on price with the supplier, rather than merely followed the supplier's suggestion."
The statement I've boldened is a complete contradiction to the desired effect. This does nothing to protect my business. It would seem to me that I must prove a few things; 1. That Colgate hurts and impedes the ability to grow my business in a free market (which I can do,) 2. That Colgate is price fixing in that there is a signed agreement by and between manufacturers that we will honor their price fixing - even if this is inferred and not spelled out in such specific verbage (in other words, we all know what we're agreeing too) 3. That the scheme perpetrated by the manufacturer is so egregious, hurting and causing financial loss to the the consumer (not the retailer,) that to ignore it is a violation of Sherman, and in such spirit, regardless of Colgate, the court must rule in favor of consumer protection.
Colgate was not written to allow price fixing - it was written to allow businesses the right to conduct business in a manner without encumbrance. It was written to allow businesses to choose with whom they do business. The very sprit of the Colgate is violated with MAP and MARP pricing as it is not the MAP and MARP that violate Colgate (they violate Sherman,) it is the adopted manufacturer policies (adopted to do an end around Sherman) cojoined with MAP and MARP that prove collusion within and between manufacturers.
Simply Put: MAP and MARP violate Sherman
The MAP and MARP Policies which spell out how the company will decide with whom to do business violate Colgate in that they are conjoined with MAP and MARP.
The spirit of the law was not to allow a businesses decision on whom to conduct business with to be based solely on whether that business blindly follows violations of other laws (Sherman,) but rather to allow companies to choose to do business with only those they felt would represent their best interest, represent and sell their products in the best manner, make efforts to help their business grow and prosper. To think otherwise and to rule in any other manner the court would have to be blind.
Stores such as ours and LP's can clearly be shown to have the best interest of everyone in mind. The consumer (by providing the best pricing and value,) the manufacturer by increasing orders and making higher volume purchases from the manufacturers and yes, ourselves and the economy by growing and expanding our businesses and providing jobs for Americans.
I urge you - if you want to help save this great dying sport - get involved to enact change. Rising prices are of course the norm in any activity these days, which is why it's more important than ever to stomp out 300% margins and bring them back down to reality. If we don't do something to make the sport affordable for a family of 4, the sport will be dead in less than 5 years. Most manufacturers will fold, most dive shops will be gone and with MAP and MARP in place, smart businessmen like myself will not be motivated to expand and fill the void left behind.
Eliminate MAP and MARP and our concept stores can pop up around the country like Dominos Pizza. Showroom floor computers - shop your best online price - then walk out the door with instant gratification via our onsite price matching. Gear always in stock - not "we have to order it for you." No waiting a month for repairs... repairs guaranteed in two weeks or they're free...
This is not an advertisement for us... Dive shop owners across the country are encouraged to adopt this policy and fight against MAP and MARP. If you want to survive - this is what you must do. Radical change is needed to fix this industry - so you can participate and make history - or sit on the sidelines twiddling your thumbs and become a part of history.
"Colgate doctrine is a conservative principle in antitrust law that allows a company to decide, on its own, with whom to do business. Any company may unilaterally terminate business with any other company without triggering a violation of the antitrust laws.
The Colgate doctrine is essential to the rights of businesses in a free market economy. This important doctrine was established by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Colgate Co., 250 U.S. 300 (1919).
The Model Jury Instruction on this issue is as follows (ABA 2005):
A supplier may go beyond announcing its suggested resale prices. It may announce that it will stop dealing with any distributors that do not follow its suggestions. Announcing such a policy, and then terminating distributors that do not follow the suggested prices, does not by itself constitute a resale price-fixing agreement. This is so because simply announcing and enforcing such a policy does not constitute an agreement between the supplier and anyone else.
This is so even if distributors follow the suggested resale prices because they fear they will be terminated if they do not follow the suggestions. ... To establish [unlawful] resale price-fixing in such a situation, the plaintiff must show that the distributor reached an agreement on price with the supplier, rather than merely followed the supplier's suggestion."
The statement I've boldened is a complete contradiction to the desired effect. This does nothing to protect my business. It would seem to me that I must prove a few things; 1. That Colgate hurts and impedes the ability to grow my business in a free market (which I can do,) 2. That Colgate is price fixing in that there is a signed agreement by and between manufacturers that we will honor their price fixing - even if this is inferred and not spelled out in such specific verbage (in other words, we all know what we're agreeing too) 3. That the scheme perpetrated by the manufacturer is so egregious, hurting and causing financial loss to the the consumer (not the retailer,) that to ignore it is a violation of Sherman, and in such spirit, regardless of Colgate, the court must rule in favor of consumer protection.
Colgate was not written to allow price fixing - it was written to allow businesses the right to conduct business in a manner without encumbrance. It was written to allow businesses to choose with whom they do business. The very sprit of the Colgate is violated with MAP and MARP pricing as it is not the MAP and MARP that violate Colgate (they violate Sherman,) it is the adopted manufacturer policies (adopted to do an end around Sherman) cojoined with MAP and MARP that prove collusion within and between manufacturers.
Simply Put: MAP and MARP violate Sherman
The MAP and MARP Policies which spell out how the company will decide with whom to do business violate Colgate in that they are conjoined with MAP and MARP.
The spirit of the law was not to allow a businesses decision on whom to conduct business with to be based solely on whether that business blindly follows violations of other laws (Sherman,) but rather to allow companies to choose to do business with only those they felt would represent their best interest, represent and sell their products in the best manner, make efforts to help their business grow and prosper. To think otherwise and to rule in any other manner the court would have to be blind.
Stores such as ours and LP's can clearly be shown to have the best interest of everyone in mind. The consumer (by providing the best pricing and value,) the manufacturer by increasing orders and making higher volume purchases from the manufacturers and yes, ourselves and the economy by growing and expanding our businesses and providing jobs for Americans.
I urge you - if you want to help save this great dying sport - get involved to enact change. Rising prices are of course the norm in any activity these days, which is why it's more important than ever to stomp out 300% margins and bring them back down to reality. If we don't do something to make the sport affordable for a family of 4, the sport will be dead in less than 5 years. Most manufacturers will fold, most dive shops will be gone and with MAP and MARP in place, smart businessmen like myself will not be motivated to expand and fill the void left behind.
Eliminate MAP and MARP and our concept stores can pop up around the country like Dominos Pizza. Showroom floor computers - shop your best online price - then walk out the door with instant gratification via our onsite price matching. Gear always in stock - not "we have to order it for you." No waiting a month for repairs... repairs guaranteed in two weeks or they're free...
This is not an advertisement for us... Dive shop owners across the country are encouraged to adopt this policy and fight against MAP and MARP. If you want to survive - this is what you must do. Radical change is needed to fix this industry - so you can participate and make history - or sit on the sidelines twiddling your thumbs and become a part of history.
