ida34
Well-known member
- 4,120
- 33
- 48
- Location
- Dexter, MI
"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Federal antitrust prosecutors charged
the owner of a Dover, Delaware, parts company today with
conspiring to rig bids on the purchase of $200,000 worth of
military surplus material sold at government auctions in the
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, area, the Department of Justice
announced."
Quoted from http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/September95/483.txt.html
The bold parts are the ones that I feel fueled the prosecution. Bolds added by me.
I have not read the Sherman Antitrust law in depth but I doubt they would prosecute two guys on two items totaling less than $2000 each. Like I said, it is a federal crime to vandalize a mailbox but I have never seen it ever prosecuted by the feds. I do thank you for the link. This is the one I read about and was quoted before. Again it may violate the law but there may be other reasons that there was a violation other than just the collusion. If this is the only case we hear about I doubt it is investigated and charged. I will take a look at the Sherman Anti-trust act. Just saying I am bidding on a certain auction in a public forum probably not be collusion. I will research that too. If I talk to another person point to point, say by PM I think you have collusion. Again, court cases are based on the facts of the case and I see none of the threads that did come up on the subject meeting the same facts or even close to the same facts. In our legal world there are no certainties. You can't base decision on simplistic general circumstances of a case. In other words. If I post that I am bidding on a certain item is not the same as a dealer making a deal with another dealer about not bidding on certain items and bidding on others.
Now to be perfectly clear. If I were to look at the Sherman Anti-trust law further and posting is clearly a violation I would not do it no matter how slight the chance of an actual prosecution.
Do you know of any other prosecutions? I did read through you links and it confirmed what I was thinking in that the Sherman Antitrust act is primarily dealing with businesses price fixing to the public. Some non-business were prosecuted but they were cartels and unions. I basically regulates monopolies. The specific case had as one of its elements conspiring. Just blindly posting is not a conspiracy. Communicating directly is conspiracy but talking out loud to everyone is not. Looking over everything I don't think just posting that you are bidding on something would amount to conspiracy or collusion. Saying that you do not want anyone to bid and in exchange you will not bid on something probably would but again it would be a creative application of the act since it was designed to regulate businesses not individuals.
At any rate this is just a discussion since the SS staff has already made a rule against posting the information.
Again, No flame. My point of view only and a friendly discussion.
On a separate note, I already have my reservation confirmed for Thunder Over Michigan. Are you planing on attending again? I hope to see you there.
the owner of a Dover, Delaware, parts company today with
conspiring to rig bids on the purchase of $200,000 worth of
military surplus material sold at government auctions in the
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, area, the Department of Justice
announced."
Quoted from http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/September95/483.txt.html
The bold parts are the ones that I feel fueled the prosecution. Bolds added by me.
I have not read the Sherman Antitrust law in depth but I doubt they would prosecute two guys on two items totaling less than $2000 each. Like I said, it is a federal crime to vandalize a mailbox but I have never seen it ever prosecuted by the feds. I do thank you for the link. This is the one I read about and was quoted before. Again it may violate the law but there may be other reasons that there was a violation other than just the collusion. If this is the only case we hear about I doubt it is investigated and charged. I will take a look at the Sherman Anti-trust act. Just saying I am bidding on a certain auction in a public forum probably not be collusion. I will research that too. If I talk to another person point to point, say by PM I think you have collusion. Again, court cases are based on the facts of the case and I see none of the threads that did come up on the subject meeting the same facts or even close to the same facts. In our legal world there are no certainties. You can't base decision on simplistic general circumstances of a case. In other words. If I post that I am bidding on a certain item is not the same as a dealer making a deal with another dealer about not bidding on certain items and bidding on others.
Now to be perfectly clear. If I were to look at the Sherman Anti-trust law further and posting is clearly a violation I would not do it no matter how slight the chance of an actual prosecution.
Do you know of any other prosecutions? I did read through you links and it confirmed what I was thinking in that the Sherman Antitrust act is primarily dealing with businesses price fixing to the public. Some non-business were prosecuted but they were cartels and unions. I basically regulates monopolies. The specific case had as one of its elements conspiring. Just blindly posting is not a conspiracy. Communicating directly is conspiracy but talking out loud to everyone is not. Looking over everything I don't think just posting that you are bidding on something would amount to conspiracy or collusion. Saying that you do not want anyone to bid and in exchange you will not bid on something probably would but again it would be a creative application of the act since it was designed to regulate businesses not individuals.
At any rate this is just a discussion since the SS staff has already made a rule against posting the information.
Again, No flame. My point of view only and a friendly discussion.
On a separate note, I already have my reservation confirmed for Thunder Over Michigan. Are you planing on attending again? I hope to see you there.