Re: Hey Terekhov: Wallace lost. Who'd guess.... ;)

[David Kastrup]

John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> writes:

> I wrote:
>> What they mean is that the plaintiff must prove that if the defendant
>> succeeded in driving him out of business with predatory pricing he would
>> subsequently be able to recoup the money he lost selling below cost by
>> selling at the elevated price he would be able to demand as a result of
>> having disposed of his competitor.
>
> David Kastrup writes:
>> That is not the only option for profiting from a crashing market.  You
>> can buy out your competitor at cheap prices, for example.  You can get
>> rid of him in another market segment where he is providing too much
>> competition.  And the investment need not be large: you can do this by
>> announcing vaporware and thus freeze the customers' willingness to pay
>> current market prices.
>
> You still must show that he could get back what he lost selling
> below cost by selling above what would otherwise have been the
> market price.  That is what is meant by "recouping its investment in
> below cost prices."

I don't see that they specify the manner of recouping, and I'd
consider this too narrow for a reasonably effective definition of
"predatory pricing".

> David Kastrup writes:
>> Oh, one could argue that they are competing with Wallace's
>> purported business plan.  If that were the only requirement,
>> Wallace would have a reasonable chance to make it to trial.
>
> As far as I know Wallace has never actually offered anything for
> sale.  US courts do not deal in hypotheticals.

Well, nobody claimed that Wallace's suit attempts failed in only one
respect.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum