kjathena wrote:
4 more venues (not named) called us today...we will be dropping off sales packets and if we have availability may pick up 3 more nights...if not we will pass them to the other legit KJ's in our area( 1 Is getting his audit within 2 weeks the other 2 are disc based) we all agreed to a minimum rate .....so someone legal will be making higher rates....or the bars will be doing without karaoke (that may happen for a bit as the owners here are trained to $50 shows....but not all bar owners are fools)
edit for those keeping count that's 6 calls within 3 days of the venue lawsuit hitting and only 3 venues were named in our area.....the lawsuits killing karaoke from the data so far quite the opposite....certainly appears to be increasing calls.
Quote:
”justice.gov”] Conditions Favorable To Collusion
While collusion can occur in almost any industry, it is more likely to occur in some industries than in others. An indicator of collusion may be more meaningful when industry conditions are already favorable to collusion.
· Collusion is more likely to occur if there are few sellers. The fewer the number of sellers, the easier it is for them to get together and agree on prices, bids, customers, or territories. Collusion may also occur when the number of firms is fairly large, but there is a small group of major sellers and the rest are "fringe" sellers who control only a small fraction of the market.
· The probability of collusion increases if other products cannot easily be substituted for the product in question or if there are restrictive specifications for the product being procured. · Collusion is more likely if the competitors know each other well through social connections, trade associations, legitimate business contacts, or shifting employment from one company to another.
kjathena wrote:
JoeC
to some extent Joe I would have to agree and for over 3 years we were able to "hold our own" when the hoards over ran our area. Because we could provide the large tills consistently and were known as the best in our area....as the bars changed owners and more and more "Cheap Charlies" came in offering DEEPLY DISCOUNTED shows the conditions changed. Yes we were called back to venues that let us go.....after they tried 3-5 "cheap Charlies" and ran off the crowds. And occationally we would return at a bit of a higher rate and attempt to rebuild.....sometimes with sucess...sometimes without. But as More and More "cheap Charlies came each bar qwner would try to get us to reduce our rates and when we did not would try the newer "Cheap Charlies" even if the tills were higher than before with us. We will not return a 3rd time. I personally take pleasure in knowing that a bar we were at for 6 years and never had less than a 2000 till....is now lucky to pull in 400 on a good night....we will never spend another miniute of our time for that owner. Our business will grow again and I must admit we are not the best business people....we drive customers too drunk home.....we pay tabs when regulars CC's are not working.....we throw B-Day and other parties for regulars....we insure that everyone is accepted at our shows....these are not "Good Business Plans" but that is how we are.
Today we received 4 more calls from venues looking for legal hosts and we will drop off sales packets and speak with the owners(none of these 4 were served but the word is spreading fast)......we also raised our rates for new shows today. If we have availability and they accept the rates we will add 3 more nights...if we are booked we will pass on the leads to other legit KJ's in our area (at this point they are disc based but 1 has computerized is being audited within 2 weeks)...we all also have agreed to minimum pricing so I see bright light at the end of the tunnel
Quote:
”justice.gov”]
Price fixing is an agreement among competitors to raise, fix, or otherwise maintain the price at which their goods or services are sold. It is not necessary that the competitors agree to charge exactly the same price, or that every competitor in a given industry join the conspiracy. Price fixing can take many forms, and any agreement that restricts price competition violates the law.
kjathena wrote:
LIKE no we are just turning the tables on the pirates......within a year hopefully 50% of venues will no longer be offering karaoke and the other 50% be making $$$ again like they were pre pirate eruption...and if we are lucky our rate will go up even more to a proper rate......its gonna be great to be able to pick and choose venues again
Legal hosts deciding to work together and not allow venues to try and play us against each other just makes sense....we can compete and be fair....oh and we are hunting for more legal hosts for our area as well....if we can hit 8 we will form an association.
Quote:
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241454.html] What is price fixing? To start with the obvious, competitors may not agree on the actual prices they will charge or pay for a product or service. But this self-evident example is only the beginning. As the Supreme Court has made explicit, horizontal agreements that affect prices are as unlawful as those that actually set them. Competitors may not agree on a price range within which they will compete, on a common list or book price from which discounts are free to vary, or on the discounts themselves. Terms and conditions of sale which indirectly affect price cannot lawfully be the subject of agreement. Nor can competitors act in concert to limit supply in order to drive prices up. Even agreements on common standards may, if entered into for the purpose of affecting price, be violative of the law.
kjathena wrote:
Moonrider, since you have pointed out that the agreement "may" be considered "price fixing" I have contacted all the KJ's I spoke of previously and we have retracted the agreement...each company now has a minimum rate they will accept and they are not the same.......we do not have to accept work that pays less than we feel we are worth and the rates will vary depending on many factors such as multiple nights, day of the week,distance, length of contract, # of hours for each show and bar owners attitude. "Possible problem solved" Thank you for your input
Quote:
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241454.html] To run afoul of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, an agreement need not be in writing and be signed by each of the parties. In fact, it need not be formally entered into at all. It would indeed be rare in this day and age for competitors to draft such an agreement. Rather, the element of agreement is an ultimate fact to be proved, sometimes by direct evidence that the parties agreed, but most often circumstantially -- by inferences logically drawn from all the relevant circumstances.Thus, whenever competitors follow a similar course of conduct which would not ordinarily be taken in the absence of prior agreement, the possibility is present that an inference of conspiracy will be drawn. To the extent that any substantial contacts among the competing firms have taken place, there is a risk that an agreement will later be found. In fact, the Supreme Court has stated that a discussion of prices and the need for an increase among competitors followed within a few days by a uniform price rise is little less than proof positive of agreement. Accordingly, such contacts should be kept to a bare minimum, if not avoided altogether.
kjathena wrote:
And as I have said we retracted the "agreement" after you pointed out that it could be "price fixing" before any venues were given said prices...each of the 4 companies have now set there own pricing dependent on many factors.
Quote:
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/211578.htm] Complementary Bidding: Complementary bidding (also known as "cover" or "courtesy" bidding) occurs when some competitors agree to submit bids that either are too high to be accepted or contain special terms that will not be acceptable to the buyer. Such bids are not intended to secure the buyer's acceptance, but are merely designed to give the appearance of genuine competitive bidding. Complementary bidding schemes are the most frequently occurring forms of bid rigging, and they defraud purchasers by creating the appearance of competition to conceal secretly inflated prices.
Florida Antitrust Law
Fla Stat. Section 542.15 et seq.Antitrust Law
Antitrust law is a complex area of federal and state statutory law, the primary purpose of which is to prevent businesses from creating unjust monopolies or competing unfairly in the marketplace. Antitrust law seeks to maximize market efficiency and to protect consumers. Many specific actions are covered by these laws, including pricing policy, terms of trade, customer and territory selection, bundling of services, advertising and sales technology, and mergers and acquisitions. An experienced antitrust attorney who stays abreast of current developments in this area should be able to advise businesses on how to avoid antitrust problems.
Actions Prohibited Under Antitrust Laws
Businesses are prohibited by antitrust laws from forming or trying to form a monopoly. The law also restricts the way businesses interact with their competitors and customers.
Monopolies
A business has a monopoly in the market if it has such an advantage over all other businesses in that field that it is said to have economic control. The company with the monopoly may be the only manufacturer of a particular commodity, or it may provide a service in the community to virtually all consumers desiring the service. A natural monopoly is one over which the business has no control--it forms in the natural course of a growing economy. The market may be so specialized, for example, that no other businesses have found it feasible to establish themselves in that area. Power companies often have natural monopolies. Natural monopolies are not illegal. It is illegal, though, for a business to conspire with others to drive its competitors out of business in order to create a monopoly.
Unlawful Relationships with Competitors
Arrangements between competitors are called horizontal arrangements under antitrust law. Some of these arrangements run afoul of antitrust laws. Generally, the agreements businesses enter into are unlawful only if they are for the intentional purpose of restraining trade or gaining a monopoly in the market. Some agreements are per se illegal, however. A per se illegal relationship with a competitor is one in which no anti-competitive intention must be proved. The arrangement itself, no matter what the purpose, is against the law.
Collective Refusal to Deal
A collective refusal to deal, also called a group boycott, is a concerted decision by competitors not to do business with another business. Unlike a single company's boycott, or a boycott by consumers of a particular business, a group boycott is unlawful because it has the effect of restraining freedom of trade. Collective refusals to deal are per se violations of the antitrust laws, that is, even if the businesses do not intend to restrain competition, their group boycott violates antitrust law.
Joint Ventures
Obviously, a joint venture is not in and of itself an unlawful business action. However, depending upon the parties involved, joint ventures sometimes violate antitrust laws. If a joint venture between several competitors in a market excludes others--especially if there are more businesses included in the joint venture than those excluded--there may be an antitrust violation. For example, if all photography equipment and processing companies in Fort Lauderdale form a joint venture, excluding two independent film processing stores, the participants in the joint venture probably are engaging in unlawful business actions.
Market Division
When competing businesses agree to divide up the market between themselves, they have engaged in market division. They may divide the market geographically, agreeing they will not enter the geographic area assigned to their competitors for the purpose of selling their products or services. They may divide the market by product, agreeing not to manufacture certain products so as to allow competitors to do so. They even may allocate particular customers between themselves. If the purpose and effect of dividing the market is to limit competition between them, the businesses have engaged in an unlawful antitrust activity.
Price Fixing
Horizontal price fixing is the agreement between competitors to set their prices the same or within the same range. For example, if the major airlines meet and agree to offer a particular price on round-trip tickets to the Caribbean, they have fixed prices in contravention of the antitrust laws. Depending on the circumstances, price fixing is per se illegal.
Tying
Tying occurs generally when a company requires buyers to purchase one product or service (called the "tied" product or service) in order to obtain another product or service (the "tying" product or service), and the arrangement restrains trade. Illegal tying is a per se violation of the antitrust laws. Three elements must be present to constitute an illegal tie-in per se:
· A tying scheme must exist, in which buyers are required to buy one commodity or service in order to obtain another commodity or service
· The seller must have enough economic power in the tying product to allow it to significantly restrict the market for the tied product
· A fairly substantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product must be affected
Tying is an antitrust concern not because it restrains competition in the tying product, but because it restrains trade in the market for the tied product. Thus, for example, a computer system manufacturer that licensed a very popular computer operating system software only to buyers of its not-so-popular computer system was held to have violated antitrust laws by unlawful tying. The manufacturer had the leverage in the market to require some purchasers to buy something they did not really want. There was a demand in the market for purchase of the products separately.
Unlawful Relationships Between Businesses and Customers
Antitrust law prohibits some actions between businesses at different levels of the market. Agreements or actions between businesses and customers, between manufacturers and distributors, or between distributors and retailers, are called vertical arrangements. As a general rule, vertical arrangements are less likely than horizontal arrangements to violate antitrust laws.
Exclusive Dealing
Although generally companies are free to do business with whomever they chose, some antitrust laws put a limitation on this freedom. Exclusive dealing arrangements, like market divisions, are illegal if they have the effect of lessening competition. A company that manufactures beach wear, for example, may not enter into a contract to sell its products to a retailer on the condition that the retailer refuse to carry any other lines of beach wear. The retailer should be able to carry the products of competing businesses.
Price Discrimination
If it is intended to injure competition, or if it has that effect, discriminating in price is prohibited by antitrust law. Sellers are not allowed to charge two purchasers different prices for the same product, unless it is for a lawful purpose. For instance, a sale to dispose of damaged or perishable goods is not price discrimination in contravention of antitrust law. On the other hand, it is unlawful for a petroleum distributor to offer to one gas station but not others petroleum at a discount.
Price Fixing
Under some antitrust laws, a manufacturer requiring a distributor or retailer to sell its product at a set price is unlawful price fixing. Usually there must be a showing that the fixed resale price was required or compelled, for example, as part of a distributor agreement. Merely suggesting a resale price is not unlawful.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
see unlike some other people I have no problem admitting mistakes or changing my path as new information comes to light 
