• Tattoo
• Clothing
• Shoes
• Piercing
• Jewelry
  • Costume jewelry
  • Body jewelry
  • Watches
  • Vintage jewelry
  • Gem stone jewelry
  • Jewelry making
  • Pins and Brooches
• Accessory clothing

• About us

• dBusinessNews :: Daily Business News Delivered to Your Desktop
  Steven Bridge

  DGSE Companies, Inc. Announces Material Changes to Definitive Agreement to Acquire Superior Galleries, Inc.; Immediate Interim Agreement to Manage Superior DALLAS -- DGSE Companies, Inc...

• Jewelry by Leo DeVroomen
  Steven Bridge

  Icons within a jewelry type appear in descending order of price. Each icon is linked to or metals. Sometimes, a price range appearing in the left column on the results page...

• July 2006
  Hotty Miss

  Stand back or the sandwich gets it! We live near a major road in Sydney that is currently being widened to accommodate a tunnel...

• Tonawanda News - REVIEWS: 'Freedom Writers
  Hotty Miss

  When naive teaching newcomer Erin Gruwell (Hilary Swank) first faced her 10th-grade English class of unteachable, marginalized students, she knew right away she was up against a major challenge...

• Our Contributors
  Robert Downey Jr

  Seeking Alpha selects great financial content for our readers and makes it freely accessible by sector and by stock ticker...

• Jewelry That Helps Says I HATE You | American Inventor Spot
  Lewis O'neal

  Are you trying to figure out what would be the perfect gift for your girlfriend or wife? You may be having some difficulty because although it s pretty obvious that they want expensive jewelry, your wallet is in denial...

• Grown-up play clothes for summer
  Alyssa Milano

  Call them play clothes for grownups. They're the kinds of pieces that are ready for anything that can come your way on a sultry summer day. They let you run and jump and move, but are stylish enough to take you out on the town afterwards...

Supreme Court easing up on monopolistic rules WASHINGTON -- With a push from the Bush administration, the Supreme Court is in the midst of steady, if little noticed, retreat from enforcing the antitrust laws that for decades have guarded against monopolies and price fixing. In the past year, the court has relaxed or repealed several rules designed to prevent anti-competitive schemes and later this month will hear another widely followed case that could dramatically change the rules of the retailing business. "The court is on a path to reshape the law to conform to the Chicago school of law and economics,'' said Albert Foer, president of the American Antitrust Institute, referring to the free-market theories associated with the University of Chicago.

"The theory now is that markets rarely fail, and regulation of business is nearly always bad.'' Born in the late 19th century, the antitrust laws grew during an era when unchecked corporate power was feared. "Every contract or conspiracy in restraint of trade'' was made illegal, and judges generally struck down business schemes that could hurt competition or consumers.

"This is just basic economics: letting manufacturers compete in their own way,'' said Roy Englert Jr., a lawyer who represents the wireless industry. "This is the free market come to life.

'' Some say antitrust laws have less relevance in the modern economy, where technology and globalization have changed the nature of business competition. New York lawyer Joseph Angland, who heads the American Bar Association's antitrust division, said the rules set early in the 20th century "don't stand up to scrutiny today.'' "The court is moving to bring antitrust law into line with economic thinking, and that is refreshing,'' he said.

Last year, the justices tossed out a ruling that barred a "joint venture'' between oil giants Texaco and Shell to sell gasoline in the West. While this joint venture might be "price fixing in the literal sense, it is not price fixing in the antitrust sense,'' wrote Justice Clarence Thomas, because these two rivals had not competed in this market. Also last year, the justices repealed a long-standing rule that made it illegal for owners of a patented product -- such as a high-speed printer -- to require its customers to purchase extra products, such as replacement ink.

If consumers don't like this "tying'' arrangement, they can buy another brand of printer, the court said. Last month, the justices overturned a $79-million jury verdict against lumber giant Weyerhaeuser for having conspired to buy up hardwood trees and put out of business its one competing saw mill in Washington state. Punishing an aggressive firm like Weyerhaeuser for buying up raw materials might "chill legitimate pro-competitive conduct,'' the court said.

The most important test of the anti-antitrust trend comes before the court March 26. The Bush administration, the National Association of Manufacturers and other big-business groups are urging the court to repeal a nearly century-old rule that bars the fixing of retail prices by manufacturers. The case involves a dispute over a Los Angeles-area company's pricing of its women's handbags.

Lawyers and economists say the outcome could affect the pricing and marketing of a vast array of products, including tennis rackets, golf clubs, plumbing fixtures and appliances. Under current practices, product makers can set a "manufacturer's suggested retail price,'' but that price is rarely paid by consumers because independent dealers are free to sell for less. Since 1911, the court has held to the "Dr.

Miles rule,'' which forbids a manufacturer and a retailer from agreeing on a minimum price for the product. The rule itself has a colorful history. At the turn of the century, the Dr.

Miles Medical Company of Indiana sought to prop up the prices of its secret elixirs and potions through deals with retail druggists. It complained of "certain establishments, known as department stores'' that had adopted "a cut-price system'' and thereby caused "much confusion, trouble and damage.'' Unmoved, the Supreme Court declared "injurious to the public interest'' all contracts and agreements between manufacturers and dealers, saying "their sole purpose (was) the destruction of the competition and the fixing of prices.

'' The Dr. Miles rule is credited with helping create an extraordinarily competitive retail market in the United States. The department stores of the early 20th century have been followed by waves of discounters, now including Internet sellers.

The company involved in the case before the court, Leegin Creative Leather Products, makes handbags, shoes and jewelry in the City of Industry, and it sells them through small stores under the Brighton brand. Its president, Jerry Kohl, told retailers they must sell the handbags at the price he set. When he learned Kay's Kloset in a suburb of Dallas was selling at a discount, Kohl cut it off from further sales.

The owners of Kay's Kloset sued, alleging they were being punished for discounting. A jury agreed and awarded $1.2 million in damages, which was tripled to $3.

6 million because it was a violation of the antitrust laws. Relying on the Dr. Miles rule, the U.

S. appeals court in New Orleans upheld the verdict. Last fall, Washington lawyer Theodore Olson, the former U.

S. solicitor general, appealed to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to overturn the Dr. Miles rule.

Bush administration lawyers joined the case on Olson's side. In its brief to the high court, the administration argued the rule is outdated and "cannot withstand modern economic analysis.'' Repealing the Dr.

Miles rule "will change the whole field of retail pricing,'' said Mark Cooper, research director of the Consumer Federation of America. If the Dr. Miles rule is repealed, "the retailers will hug the manufacturers, and they will put in a price floor.

It will hurt the discounters.'' Englert, one of the lawyers who says Dr. Miles should be overruled, doubts its repeal would have a major impact.

"Most manufacturers have found a way to do this already,'' he said, by restricting who sells their products. The case before the court concerns only so-called vertical agreements between a manufacturer, a wholesaler or a retailer. No one is challenging the rule against a "horizontal'' price-fixing scheme between manufacturers or between retailers.

Though the Supreme Court has held to the Dr. Miles rule that outlaws retail price fixing, Congress made a partial exception to the rule during the 1950s and '60s at the behest of industry. States were permitted to adopt "fair trade'' laws that cleared the way for manufacturers and retailers to fix prices.

The experiment proved costly to consumers. A Justice Department study in the late 1960s found certain products in the "fair trade'' states cost 18 percent to 27 percent more. Congress moved to repeal its earlier measure, and in 1975, President Ford signed into law a renewed ban on price fixing by manufacturers.

The state price-fixing laws had "prevented the American people from receiving the benefit of lower prices on cameras, watches, sporting goods, small appliances, auto supplies and many other brand-name products,'' Ford said when he enacted the bill. The measure, he said, would "enable consumers in all 50 states to shop for the best products at the lowest possible prices.