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

[John Hasler]

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."

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.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA