Opposition to the Bills Sample Clauses

Opposition to the Bills. The attempt in the previous Congress to enact legislation to repeal the Leegin decision and reinstate per se ban on RPM, ended in the reports by the Committees on the Judiciar y in both xxxxxxxx of Congress.178）Each report respectively recommended that the bills do pass in the Senate or the House. However, the decisions were not made unanimously in both xxxxxxxx of Congress. In the Senate report, following the majority views of the Committee similar to those stated by Senator Xxxx in the bill’s introduction, three Senators in the Committee passionately argued and facilitated a spirited discussion about how the antitrust laws should be shaped and applied to protect consumers from anticompetitive behavior, taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s relative precedents and modern economics analysis of RPM.179） In the first place, the minority views casted doubt on the bill’s blanket ban of RPM agreements, insisting that the per se rules in antitrust violations should be reserved only for manifestly anticompetitive conduct in light of the Supreme Court’s precedents.180）They stated, citing Xxxxxx, that per se rules were appropriate only if court could predict with confidence that the practice at issue would be invalidated in all or almost all instances under the ordinary rule-of-reason antitrust analysis.181） They continued, citing Business Electronics,182）that such per se rules had been traditionally confined to restraints that would be always or almost always tend to restrict competition and decrease output.183）In addition, considering the guiding principle shown in Sylvania184） that a departure from the rule-of-reason standard must be based on demonstrable economic effect rather than formalistic line drawing, they repeated Leegin, which stated that the Supreme Court found that per se rules were appropriate only after courts had considerable experience with the type of restraint at issue.185）Furthermore, citing Xxxx,186）they confirmed that the Supreme Court had appropriately been reluctant to adopt per se rules with regard to restraints imposed in the context of business relationship where the economic impact of certain practices was not immediately obvious.187）In terms of the Leegin decision, they found that the Supreme Court reviewed a considerable body of antitrust Mar. 2012 THE END OF THE LEEGIN SAGA AND THE BEGINNING OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE RULE OF REASON IN RPM CASES economic literature dealing with RPM and concluded that the per se rule of Xx. Xxxxx ...