Harley-Davidson petition to lift 1954 order: exclusive dealing is 'procompetitive.'
Article Abstract:
Harley-Davidson responded to a Federal Trade Commission invitation by asking that the Cease and Desist Order entered against Harley-Davidson on June 29, 1954, be set aside. That order barred Harley-Davidson from using any exclusive dealing arrangement with its dealers and reflected the market conditions and dominant position of Harley-Davidson in 1954. The petition, set forth in 1995, notes significantly changed conditions, with Honda now the dominant manufacturer and Harley Davidson sold by only 18% of dealers. Dropping the order would be procompetitive and end free riding.
Publication Name: Antitrust Law and Economics Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0003-6048
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Exclusive dealing with 70% share: Harley-Davidson's restricted output, inflated prices, and inferior quality
Article Abstract:
The Federal Trade Commission should deny Harley-Davidson's petition for the 1954 Cease and Desist Order against it to be dropped. Harley-Davidson still dominates its chosen market, the economically distinct one of heavyweight cruisers and touring bikes, with between 60% and 75% of the cruiser market. It sells shoddy goods for wildly overinflated prices, while competitors offer much better equipment for half the price or less. If Harley-Davidson is allowed to require an exclusive dealing arrangement, so will its competitors, hurting the market.
Publication Name: Antitrust Law and Economics Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0003-6048
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Anatomy of a monopoly: the Harley-Davidson model
Article Abstract:
Harley-Davidson's response to the Federal Trade Commission's sunsetting invitation illustrates what is wrong with antitrust theory and practice in the US today. The FTC invited companies with cease-and-desist orders more than 20 years old to request the orders be dropped. Harley-Davidson responded, claiming it controlled less of the motorcycle market than some competitors, and that ending the order would improve its competitive position. It implied it might again start requiring dealers to not carry competitors' goods.
Publication Name: Antitrust Law and Economics Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0003-6048
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Clean air requires commuting options. Family leave coverage is overestimated. OSHA reform efforts are heating up
- Abstracts: In opinions to clients, intellectual property lawyers face risks. Standard of care in intellectual property law opinions
- Abstracts: Flying solo: one attorney transitions to his own firm and finds effective billiong system . 9th Annual Readers' Choice Awards
- Abstracts: Can a lawyer insist on clients of one gender? Fluttering eyes won't cut it with law clients. Career progress, yes; equality, not quite yet
- Abstracts: War tribunal counsel; a Latham & Watkins partner defends a general accused of slaughter in war-torn Bosnia. A clash of cultures leads to the courtroom: was L.A. partner Philip Heller too brash for an old-line law firm based in San Francisco?