• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Coke sued 68 mill in antimonopoly suit

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Originally posted by: Amused
What an absurd ruling.

Coke has every right to refuse to sell wholesale to anyone. She had every right to comply, not sell Coke, or buy retail and resell Coke.

Because that's the gist of it, here. She had a retail contract with Coke to purchase and resell Coke at wholesale prices. Coke reserves the right to set the terms and she reseves the right to accept, or reject those terms.

Again, this ruling is absurd and a gross violation of Coke's rights.
Click to expand...


It is because they wont sell to her BECAUSE she is selling another product that it is monopolistic
Click to expand...

Not really, that's called "free trade" and "capitalism." It's perfectly legal and happens constantly. That's why hundreds of thousands of PUBLIC SCHOOLS have been either selling coke or pepsi for the longest times, but never both unless they want to buy at retail prices.
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Not really, that's called "free trade" and "capitalism." It's perfectly legal and happens constantly. That's why hundreds of thousands of PUBLIC SCHOOLS have been either selling coke or pepsi for the longest times, but never both unless they want to buy at retail prices.
Click to expand...

Honestly, can you not understand the difference between offering an incentive for an exclusive contract and refusing to do business with someone who sells competing products?

Schools are free to offer both Pepsi and Coke if they choose, but they take the exclusive contract because it's a better deal. This woman wasn't given a choice.

Get it?
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Nik
Not really, that's called "free trade" and "capitalism." It's perfectly legal and happens constantly. That's why hundreds of thousands of PUBLIC SCHOOLS have been either selling coke or pepsi for the longest times, but never both unless they want to buy at retail prices.
Click to expand...

Honestly, can you not understand the difference between offering an incentive for an exclusive contract and refusing to do business with someone who sells competing products?

Schools are free to offer both Pepsi and Coke if they choose, but they take the exclusive contract because it's a better deal. This woman wasn't given a choice.

Get it?
Click to expand...

How was she not given a choice? She chooses what she sells in her store. She either sells coke products or she doesn't. Ultimately, it's her choice to either accept the contract or not.
 
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: Ornery
You numbnuts do understand that restaurants here can sell Coke, OR Pepsi, but not both, right? Any clue why? Do you have a clue about anything? 😕
Click to expand...

yea thats true for a restaurants but not convience/grocery stores
Click to expand...

OMG pwning an elite member to the infinite. That deserves an elite title.
Click to expand...

Okay. Simple concept.

One restaurant either sells both products and buys each product for more OR they sell only one product on contract with that product's manufacturer in exchange for a cheaper price.

Simple.

What's not to understand?
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Nik
Not really, that's called "free trade" and "capitalism." It's perfectly legal and happens constantly. That's why hundreds of thousands of PUBLIC SCHOOLS have been either selling coke or pepsi for the longest times, but never both unless they want to buy at retail prices.
Click to expand...

Honestly, can you not understand the difference between offering an incentive for an exclusive contract and refusing to do business with someone who sells competing products?

Schools are free to offer both Pepsi and Coke if they choose, but they take the exclusive contract because it's a better deal. This woman wasn't given a choice.

Get it?
Click to expand...

She was perfectly capable of purchasing the product retail and reselling it. The coke contract offered wholesale prices for an exclusivity arangement just like the example you are trying to use.
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Nik
Not really, that's called "free trade" and "capitalism." It's perfectly legal and happens constantly. That's why hundreds of thousands of PUBLIC SCHOOLS have been either selling coke or pepsi for the longest times, but never both unless they want to buy at retail prices.
Click to expand...

Honestly, can you not understand the difference between offering an incentive for an exclusive contract and refusing to do business with someone who sells competing products?

Schools are free to offer both Pepsi and Coke if they choose, but they take the exclusive contract because it's a better deal. This woman wasn't given a choice.

Get it?
Click to expand...

How was she not given a choice? She chooses what she sells in her store. She either sells coke products or she doesn't. Ultimately, it's her choice to either accept the contract or not.
Click to expand...

And clearly forcing that choice on her is illegal under Mexican law. And your comparison to exlusive contracts with schools and restaurants in the US is still faulty. I doubt what they did would be illegal in the US either, or they'd be trying the same crap here - but they're not.

A business's rights, like an individual's, are not absolute.
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: stnicralisk
Originally posted by: Amused
What an absurd ruling.

Coke has every right to refuse to sell wholesale to anyone. She had every right to comply, not sell Coke, or buy retail and resell Coke.

Because that's the gist of it, here. She had a retail contract with Coke to purchase and resell Coke at wholesale prices. Coke reserves the right to set the terms and she reseves the right to accept, or reject those terms.

Again, this ruling is absurd and a gross violation of Coke's rights.
Click to expand...


It is because they wont sell to her BECAUSE she is selling another product that it is monopolistic
Click to expand...

Not really, that's called "free trade" and "capitalism." It's perfectly legal and happens constantly. That's why hundreds of thousands of PUBLIC SCHOOLS have been either selling coke or pepsi for the longest times, but never both unless they want to buy at retail prices.
Click to expand...

My high school only sold had Pepsi vending machines, before they got rid of sodas all together.
 
Can't believe some of you are siding with Coke on this.

If Intel was doing this same sh!t to AMD, you would all sh!t a brick.
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
She was perfectly capable of purchasing the product retail and reselling it. The coke contract offered wholesale prices for an exclusivity arangement just like the example you are trying to use.
Click to expand...

She had already been selling Coke products, and the article did not mention she had an exclusive contract with Coke.

I'll try to be a little more clear...

Situation A:
Coke: We'll give you a 15% discount if you sell only our products
Retailer: No thanks, I'd rather sell Pepsi too
Coke: OK, no discount for you

That is fine!

Situation B:
Coke: If you want to sell our products you can't sell anything else
Retailer: I'd rather sell Pepsi too
Coke: OK, then you can't sell our products

That is an entirely different situation!

Coke is using its size and popularity to try to squash a competitor. I'm not sure how much more monopolistic you can get...
 
Originally posted by: Eli
Can't believe some of you are siding with Coke on this.

If Intel was doing this same sh!t to AMD, you would all sh!t a brick.
Click to expand...


They already are.

Even if the legal battle AMD is soon to embark on is only half based on facts, Intel has been doing the same thing to several manufacturers already.
 
Originally posted by: n7
Originally posted by: Eli
Can't believe some of you are siding with Coke on this.

If Intel was doing this same sh!t to AMD, you would all sh!t a brick.
Click to expand...


They already are.

Even if the legal battle AMD is soon to embark on is only half based on facts, Intel has been doing the same thing to several manufacturers already.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and if it turns out to be true they will loose.

But it would be more like Intel telling your local mom&pop computer shop that they cannot sell AMD products or products designed for AMD hardware(ie: motherboards) if they want to sell Intel products too.

How would you like to go down the street and try to purchase a shiny new A64 and mobo only to be told that "Intel said that we cannot sell AMD anymore or they will refuse to supply us."?

:roll:

Huh Nik? 😛
 
I just skimmed over the article again, and going by what they say in the article I see no indication that Coke did anything wrong. All I see over and over is that Coke distributors were the ones bullying her. Plus, nobody said she couldn't sell coke. She just couldn't buy it at below wholesale prices. The article says that she did go buy Coke whole-sale and sell it. To use mugs's format:

Situation C:
Coke: If you want to buy our products for sub-wholesale prices, you can't sell anything else.
Retailer: I'd rather sell Pepsi too.
Coke: OK, then you can buy our products wholesale.
 
Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
I just skimmed over the article again, and going by what they say in the article I see no indication that Coke did anything wrong. All I see over and over is that Coke distributors were the ones bullying her. Plus, nobody said she couldn't sell coke. She just couldn't buy it at below wholesale prices. The article says that she did go buy Coke whole-sale and sell it. To use mugs's format:

Situation C:
Coke: If you want to buy our products for sub-wholesale prices, you can't sell anything else.
Retailer: I'd rather sell Pepsi too.
Coke: OK, then you can buy our products wholesale.
Click to expand...

That's not actually clear from the article. It never says she was getting sub-wholesale prices, and the "wholesale centers" she was buying from were probably something along the lines of Costco/Sam's Club/BJ's wholesale clubs so she wasn't actually getting wholesale prices. If the distributors weren't willing to deliver it to her, why would they be willing to sell it to her so she could drag it home in her Dodge Dart?

You're right that the article doesn't indicate that Coca-Cola did anything wrong, it's distributors did and they were the ones who got the fines. It does say at the top that Coca-Cola was also fined, but nowhere in the article does it say how much or for what... it sounds like just the distributors were fined.
 
The calls of monopolies here are absurd. Forget this is Mexico, and focus on basic freedom for a minute.

ANY business, for any reason (not protected by a law), should be able to refuse service to anyone. Just as any consumer, for any reason, should be able to refuse doing business with anyone.

That, folks, is called equality under the law.

Now, Coke NEVER said she could not sell Coke products. They simply said that they, and their licensed distributors would refuse to do business with her if she did not meet their contractual demands.

Consumers do this EVERY DAY. How many here have refused to do business with a company because they would not meet your demands? ALL OF US.

Now why shouldn't a business have that same right? When did they give up their freedom of association and you did not?
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: rahvin
She was perfectly capable of purchasing the product retail and reselling it. The coke contract offered wholesale prices for an exclusivity arangement just like the example you are trying to use.
Click to expand...

She had already been selling Coke products, and the article did not mention she had an exclusive contract with Coke.

I'll try to be a little more clear...

Situation A:
Coke: We'll give you a 15% discount if you sell only our products
Retailer: No thanks, I'd rather sell Pepsi too
Coke: OK, no discount for you

That is fine!

Situation B:
Coke: If you want to sell our products you can't sell anything else
Retailer: I'd rather sell Pepsi too
Coke: OK, then you can't sell our products

That is an entirely different situation!

Coke is using its size and popularity to try to squash a competitor. I'm not sure how much more monopolistic you can get...
Click to expand...

Word.
An exclusivity contract is not the same as the issue in this article.
Sure, McD's may have an exclusive deal with Coke, but Coke did not say "you can only sell our product if you don't sell ourcompetitors", they most likely said "would you like to sing a dealwith us where you exclusively sell our product, in return for more favourable purchasing terms".
That's not even CLOSE to the same thing. Signing a beneficial deal != being forced into only supplying one beverage.
 
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Sounds like the Intel and AMD situation, where Intel is Coca Cola and AMD is Big Coke. Intel threatens suppliers such as Dell and Fujitsu to cut-off their deals if they sell AMD.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
why is McDonalds even mentioned in this discussion. SHE RUNS A STORE PEOPLE! not a restaurant. There is a huge difference here. Our fast food restaurants work to sell you there brand along with what soft drink carrier the contract with.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: rahvin
She was perfectly capable of purchasing the product retail and reselling it. The coke contract offered wholesale prices for an exclusivity arangement just like the example you are trying to use.
Click to expand...

She had already been selling Coke products, and the article did not mention she had an exclusive contract with Coke.

I'll try to be a little more clear...

Situation A:
Coke: We'll give you a 15% discount if you sell only our products
Retailer: No thanks, I'd rather sell Pepsi too
Coke: OK, no discount for you

That is fine!

Situation B:
Coke: If you want to sell our products you can't sell anything else
Retailer: I'd rather sell Pepsi too
Coke: OK, then you can't sell our products

That is an entirely different situation!

Coke is using its size and popularity to try to squash a competitor. I'm not sure how much more monopolistic you can get...
Click to expand...

WRONG,
exclusive pricing deals are subject to antitrust lawsuits. Anything that attemps to limit competition is in vilation of the sherman and clayton acts.

It kinda depends on how good your lawyer teams is, beacuse after all it's just a lawsuit. Most of these are not decided per se, so if you can show that the current scheme is relatively efficent, you're ok.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Ornery

  1. Not so here, and nobody is being dragged to court about it either! It's called a contract.
Click to expand...

Just to make it absolutely clear, you *cannot* make exclusive agreements or contracts, it's illegal as spelled out in the Clayton Act.
Click to expand...

The courts do not agree with you. IIRC, the reasoning is that the industry is considered sufficiently competitive.

The exclusive contracts are for a limited term (usually a few years) and go up for bid at the end of that time. Whoever makes the better deal wins.
Click to expand...


True,
all it's really saying is that if you make an exclusive agreement/pricing scheme, chances are DOJ will sue you. They have to prove, though, that the market you're in is not competitive.


http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/foia/divisionmanual/ch2.htm
 
It is just another way for another country to stick it to America.

Actually brand selling restrictions happen all the time even in the U.S. Schools willl only sell Coca-Cola/Pepsi but not both unless they are an affluent school which makes both product profit.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
The calls of monopolies here are absurd. Forget this is Mexico, and focus on basic freedom for a minute.

ANY business, for any reason (not protected by a law), should be able to refuse service to anyone. Just as any consumer, for any reason, should be able to refuse doing business with anyone.

That, folks, is called equality under the law.

Now, Coke NEVER said she could not sell Coke products. They simply said that they, and their licensed distributors would refuse to do business with her if she did not meet their contractual demands.

Consumers do this EVERY DAY. How many here have refused to do business with a company because they would not meet your demands? ALL OF US.

Now why shouldn't a business have that same right? When did they give up their freedom of association and you did not?
Click to expand...


False analogy,
from economic point of view, you're comparing apples to oranges. Consumers shift the demand one way or another, theres no inefficency. If coke has exclusve contracts, they will try hard to limit competition and rise prices to monopoly level. That's infficents. That's why DOJ/FTC brings companies to the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top