3 Flat-Screen Makers Plead Guilty to Trying to Keep Prices High | Hacker News Reader

3 Flat-Screen Makers Plead Guilty to Trying to Keep Prices High

nytimes.com

28 pointsraju18 comments

Now if only this could happen for the US cell phone SMS charges. Theres absolutely no reason why it costs 20 cents each way to send 140 7-byte characters.

If we could all agree to use a messaging app that bypasses the traditional SMS app, we could do this ourselves!

I know, if only there was some sort of network where 'instant' messages could be sent for free without relying on the phone network. We could call it "instant messaging" and people could have 'buddy lists' that allow them to easily converse with their friends. I think I'll start one and call it "I Seek You"

I guess I'd have to side with the libertarians on that one. Yeah, it's some kind of ugly market failure, but SMS's aren't an essential service to which people have some kind of claim in a caring society, like food or shelter. Jacking those prices up is all the more incentive for people to jump at the first thing that approaches the true marginal cost of sending data.

Not only that but, at least on GSM, it's practically free for the cellular companies.

They are sent over the same signalling protocol as other network control messages. They are only delivered in empty frames, and the networks make no guarantees about delivery. Thus, SMS messages may be delayed indefinitely when the air is busy or, under some conditions, dropped entirely. One SMS message, plus headers, takes up one GSM frame (this is the reason for the length limit).

It's actually quite the interesting scam they have going. My understanding is that SMS was a last-minute addition, kind of a "hey, no one will probably use this, but let's throw it in just for the hell of it" feature. Then it turned into a huge money-maker.

How much lower will this take prices? 10%? 20%? 30%?

This is price fixing that occurred in the past, from something like 2001-2006 I believe. So, prices currently should reflect the adjustment down from the "artificial" costs from that time period.

I always thought back then that I would get one once the price came down, now the prices are quite low but I have no desire to get one because they're so prevalent that I no longer need one.

I'm going to argue FOR keeping prices at least somewhat high. Look at what Dell did to themselves and the PC market, they marginalized themselves out of a profitable business by becoming so efficient and competing on price alone. Walmart another good example, low prices good for them, but not good for the markets/manufacturers and ultimately the consumers (jobs go overseas, pay goes down domestically)

So where is all this money they are being forced to cough up going? I just bought a new monitor a couple of months ago and it was a big deal for me because I don't have too much spending money. I doubt any of this money will go to any actual victims.

Take part in the class action lawsuit if you're eligible. Quick Google search turns up: http://www.lieffcabraser.com/antitrust/lcd-antitrust.htm

It sounds like the members of the class are the companies which bought directly from the manufacturers. For instance, Dell buys LCD displays from Samsung to rebadge. So if Samsung were a guilty party Dell would get some of this settlement but I would not, even though as Dell's customer I bear the final cost of the price fixing :/

You only bought it when you decided it was an acceptable price to pay for what you were getting - what claim do you have that you were treated unfairly?

The "treated unfairly" part comes from the fact that a cartel formed to make sure that if you wanted a product with a lcd in it you had to pay an inflated price to a cartel member.

Innovation should have (and would have naturally) driven prices down had a few big boys not gotten together and used their collective might to prevent that competition.

It sucks that prices were too high but it sucks even more when actions like these halt innovation, usually using downright rotten legal means to prevent smaller competitors from entering the market to challenge the cartel's position.

The class action suit, even when it does not benefit end consumers much, works together with antitrust law to prevent industries from balkanizing into huge cartels, jacking up prices, controlling supplies to engineer shortages, and then forcefully ceasing all innovation.

You didn't have to pay. I want a supercar, but I don't have to pay the price for one.

And I wonder about "an inflated price". All prices are "inflated" because all companies make profit. That's what companies do...

Yes, I would like prices to come down and products to get better, and it is annoying (and perhaps illegal) when companies force that not to happen.

But really, if they kept prices high, and people still bought their product ... why should we legally twist companies arms to force their prices down?

Especially when there are other LCD manufacturers in the world who (presumably) couldn't introduce significant competition?

OK, in a caring society we have government intervention in food and water supplies, heating subsidies and medicine. But government forced cheaper consumer electronics? What?

You didn't have to pay. I want a supercar, but I don't have to pay the price for one.

No, you missed it. They want to make you buy a supercar if you want any kind of car at all. They'll use their lawyers, their influence and their money to keep anyone else from building you a Honda. Want a car? Get a Ferrari. Can't afford one? Walk.

If you don't watch it they might even get a lobbyist to pay some congressmen to pass a "walk tax".

Please note that I never claimed that I was treated unfairly by Dell. It's just factual that I paid a higher price than I would have if there were not collusion in the market for LCD displays. Part of the point of free market capitalism is that competitors don't collude to keep prices artificially high. When they do, it's a market failure. That's why antitrust regulation is so vigorously enforced. I'll quote from the article:

In a 2004 Supreme Court decision, which was unanimous, cartels were called “the supreme evil of antitrust.”

“Cartels are regarded as the most dangerous form of anticompetitive conduct,” said Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. “The reason is that the potential impact on consumers is so great, and there is no plausible justification for it.”

Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com