Talk:Robinson–Patman Act

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

R-P Act in recent practice

I am also trying to find such examples and did not yet succeed. However, there have been attempts to claim based on section 2a of the Clayton Act, which were unsuccessful. Eg. Volvo Trucs North America, I.c vs. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc, No 04-905 from 2005; anyway DOJ Antitrust division isn´t particularly happy with the Act pointing out that neither Antitrust Division nor FTC devote resources to enforce it and that it is inconsistent with effective competition policy and recommendations were made to repeal of the act. see http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/207122.htm. (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on R-P Act in recent practice

Are there any examples where the Robinson-Patman Act has been used to successfully sue and penalize a company for discriminatory practices, within the years 2001-2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.2.193.1 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement in article about OEMs

Why doesn't the R-P Act apply to OEM's?

Rdhanson 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Rdhanson[reply]

I assume that it is due to the fact that, if you are selling a component part to an OEM, that OEM will be building the component part into a different product, which would then remove the resale of the product from the R-P Act's requirement that the resold items be of like grade and quality. However, I would love a better explanation and support for this proposition, which is my reason for posting.

As I understand it, the Robinson-Patman act allows the manufacturer of parts to give discounts to customers who order in bulk quantities. The thought seems to be that chain stores and OEMs are most likely to be buying a product in quantities that it would make sense to give such discounts. ...but I have no reputable references to back up this claim. Cputrdoc 22:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RP Act does apply to OEMs. I've edited accordingly. This whole article is in desperate need of citations and a rewrite. --66.28.243.126 16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]