http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies … 52243218/1
Asian companies settle LCD price-fix case for $553M
ALBANY, New York (AP) – New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says seven companies based in Asia will pay $553 million to settle allegations by prosecutors in eight states that they conspired to inflate prices for liquid crystal display screens used in televisions and computer monitors.
The settlement covers Chi Mei Innolux, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Epson Imaging Devices, HannStar Display, Hitachi Displays, Samsung Electronics and Sharp and their U.S. affiliates.
It provides $501 million for partial refunds for consumers in 24 states and the District of Columbia who purchased products with the companies' panels from 1999 through 2006.
The attorneys general had alleged that the Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese companies, which make the thin film transistor LCD panels, conspired to keep prices high.
we need less regulation
Tu Stultus Es
agreed
international cartel
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/2 … 71313.html
LCD Price-Fixing Suit Results In $553 Million Settlement
By Karen Freifeld
(Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co, Sharp Corp and five other makers of liquid crystal displays agreed to pay more than $553 million to settle consumer and state regulatory claims that they conspired to fix prices for LCD panels in televisions, notebook computers and monitors.
The settlement is the latest arising from lawsuits alleging the creation of an international cartel designed to illegally inflate prices and stifle competition in LCD panels between 1999 and 2006, affecting billions of dollars of U.S. commerce.
In December 2006, authorities in Japan, Korea, the European Union and the United States revealed a probe into alleged anti-competitive activity among LCD panel manufacturers. Many companies and executives have since pleaded guilty to criminal antitrust violations and paid more than $890 million in fines.
The latest payout includes $538.6 million to resolve claims by "indirect" purchasers that bought televisions and computers with thin film transistor LCDs, as well as claims by eight states: Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
It also includes payments of more than $14.7 million by five of the companies to settle civil fine and penalty law claims by the states, the office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said.
"This price-fixing scheme manipulated the playing field for businesses that abide by the rules, and left consumers to pay artificially higher costs for televisions, computers and other electronics," Schneiderman said in a statement on Tuesday.
The accord calls for Samsung to pay $240 million, Sharp $115.5 million and Taiwan-based Chimei Innolux Corp $110.3 million, settlement papers filed on Friday with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco show.
Hitachi Displays Ltd will pay $39 million, HannStar Display Corp, $25.7 million; Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd, $5.3 million, and Epson Imaging Devices Corp, $2.9 million, the court documents show.
The settling companies also agreed to establish antitrust compliance programs and to help prosecute other defendants.
Court approval is required, and the settling companies continue to dispute the allegations, the court documents show.
The state penalties include $6 million to be paid by Sharp, $5.7 million by Chimei, and smaller amounts by Epson, HannStar and Hitachi, a spokeswoman for Schneierman said.
Other defendants have yet to settle, including Taiwan-based AU Optronics Corp, one of the largest LCD panel manufacturers; South Korea's LG Display Co and Toshiba Corp.
An AU Optronics spokeswoman did not immediately respond to an emailed request for a comment.
The accord follows a settlement this month by eight companies, including Samsung and Sharp, to pay $388 million to settle litigation by direct purchasers of the LCD panels.
The case is In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 07-md-01827.
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2011-12-27 12:27:05)
What the fuck is wrong with the USA?
Not content with trying to influence every oil owning middle eastern country, they are now sueing other countries for technology.
Surely its up to the base manu of tech to charge whatever the fuck it wants?
What about every other country this has affected? Do they get their money back too? Or is it just the USA who gets a big refund (suprise, suprise).
Not content with trying to influence every oil owning middle eastern country, they are now sueing other countries for technology.
Surely its up to the base manu of tech to charge whatever the fuck it wants?
What about every other country this has affected? Do they get their money back too? Or is it just the USA who gets a big refund (suprise, suprise).
there's a big difference between setting your own price and arranging a price-fixing ring. there are competition laws in place to stop such a thing; it's immoral and bad business practice. what if all the major mobile phone companies got together in a secret ring with apple and agreed to charge £350 minimum for entry-level smartphones? then you'd complain, right? well it's the same thing with these LCD companies: artificially keeping the prices of their panels at sky-high levels by simply all agreeing to not undercut one another.
it's particularly odious because all these huge electronic companies in china don't give shit to their workers in terms of pay or rights. they're price fixing and creaming huge profits whilst their workers deal with toxic fumes and shit working conditions all day. this is the ugly side of monopoly capitalism - the sort of thing you saw in europe in 1850.
it's particularly odious because all these huge electronic companies in china don't give shit to their workers in terms of pay or rights. they're price fixing and creaming huge profits whilst their workers deal with toxic fumes and shit working conditions all day. this is the ugly side of monopoly capitalism - the sort of thing you saw in europe in 1850.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Ok, but the USA still has no right to sue them, their government has the power to do that, not the USA!
And most manufacturers set pricing structures that you cannot deviate from, Samsung however, dont.
It can be a good thing that the manu's have reached a price agreement. And I dont see the problem with "sky high" prices really, its all about supply and demand, and theres lots of demand.
Doesnt this mean that Ferrari and Lamborghini should sell their respective cars for 1/10th of the price of retail, its the same thing... are the USA going to sue them too?
And most manufacturers set pricing structures that you cannot deviate from, Samsung however, dont.
It can be a good thing that the manu's have reached a price agreement. And I dont see the problem with "sky high" prices really, its all about supply and demand, and theres lots of demand.
Doesnt this mean that Ferrari and Lamborghini should sell their respective cars for 1/10th of the price of retail, its the same thing... are the USA going to sue them too?
lol guess who's protecting them? Asian governments are fuckign dirty when it comes to this. I don't think you fully understand the problems when it comes to price fixing in a market.twoblacklines wrote:
Ok, but the USA still has no right to sue them, their government has the power to do that, not the USA!
US government does have a right to sue them, they're selling their products in the USA are they not? That's like saying a Taiwanese company sold exploding TV's in the US and can't be sued because they're not "american owned."
Exploding tv's is a completely different scenario!
Umm, any country can sue the businesses that do business within their borders if they break the law.twoblacklines wrote:
Ok, but the USA still has no right to sue them, their government has the power to do that, not the USA!
And most manufacturers set pricing structures that you cannot deviate from, Samsung however, dont.
It can be a good thing that the manu's have reached a price agreement. And I dont see the problem with "sky high" prices really, its all about supply and demand, and theres lots of demand.
Doesnt this mean that Ferrari and Lamborghini should sell their respective cars for 1/10th of the price of retail, its the same thing... are the USA going to sue them too?
And no, it's not about supply and demand, they are artificially keeping the price high regardless of demand. Cartels are illegal.
Last edited by Jay (2011-12-29 11:24:17)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat