Tópico: Ele quer vender por menos. Mas não pode

[Worf]

Eis aqui um belíssimo exemplo de como a competição -- elemento primordial do sistema capitalista -- pode ser encarada no Brasil. Trata-se de um país onde a Justiça decide que cobrar preços menores do consumidor é crime. No centro da história está a Drogaria São Paulo, maior rede de farmácias do país, com faturamento anual de 1,1 bilhão de reais. Há três anos, a empresa começou a atuar em Fortaleza, no Ceará, e, para ganhar mercado, passou a adotar uma agressiva política de descontos em medicamentos. Bastou para que a concorrência corresse até a Justiça, alegando dumping. Até aí, aconteceu o esperado. O que surpreende é a seqüência de decisões que até hoje impedem a empresa de praticar preços mais baixos num mercado no qual, muitas vezes, remédio é artigo de luxo. O processo é kafkiano. É um desafio entender por que ele continua existindo. O Ministério Público, justamente quem acusou a empresa de concorrência desleal, se retirou do caso e agora afirma ser injusto punir a Drogaria São Paulo. O Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade), órgão regulador da concorrência no país, eximiu a empresa da acusação e recomendou que a Justiça a absolvesse. Ainda assim, pelo menos até o dia 17 de setembro, quando foi fechada esta edição, o processo corria no Judiciário e ninguém sabia dizer ao certo se a Drogaria São Paulo podia ou não vender mais barato em Fortaleza. "O caso é surrealista: queremos vender mais barato, mas não conseguimos", diz Marcus Paiva, superintendente da Drogaria São Paulo.
(...)

Por unanimidade, em julho de 2006 os conselheiros do Cade julgaram que a Drogaria São Paulo não pratica preços predatórios no Ceará. "Esse tipo de prática só é bem-sucedida se a empresa predadora consegue levar à falência a maioria dos competidores e também consegue barrar a entrada de novos concorrentes na fase em que aumenta seus preços para, finalmente, conseguir lucros significativos", afirma Luiz Fernando Vasconcellos, relator do caso no Cade. "A acusada não tinha nenhuma das duas condições." Em primeiro lugar, sua participação de mercado, inferior a 1%, seria insuficiente para que as promoções provocassem mortandade de competidores. Além disso, a Drogaria São Paulo não conseguiria manter lucros altos por um longo período de tempo, pois não teria como impedir o surgimento de novas concorrentes na fase em que tivesse de aumentar os preços. Um caso semelhante envolveu a empresa aérea Gol em 2004. A companhia também foi denunciada ao Cade ao vender passagens por 50 reais, à época um preço inédito. O órgão julgou improcedente a reclamação e validou a promoção.

JA A DROGARIA SÃO PAULO, mesmo com o parecer do Cade, não se livrou das amarras da Justiça. Os absurdos do périplo começaram um mês depois da abertura da primeira loja na capital cearense. Sensibilizado pelo argumento do Sincofarma, o MP celebrou com o sindicato um acordo que fixou em 15% o desconto máximo que as farmácias podiam aplicar sobre os preços de medicamentos no Ceará. "O Ministério Público acabou legalizando um cartel", afirma Arthur Badin, procurador-geral do Cade. A Drogaria São Paulo não aceitou o acordo e continuou dando descontos acima de 30% nos remédios. Foi aí que o MP acionou a empresa na Justiça e a denunciou ao Cade por dumping. Quatro meses depois, o caso foi julgado em primeira instância, e a decisão foi contra a rede paulista. Um ano após o início do problema, uma reviravolta sinalizou que a situação seria resolvida. O promotor Ricardo Memória, o mesmo que estabelecera o teto de descontos e denunciara a empresa à Justiça e ao Cade, revogou o limite de descontos. "Eu me senti enganado", afirma Memória. "Descobri que as farmácias afiliadas ao próprio Sincofarma, incluindo as do presidente do sindicato e uma que funcionava dentro do prédio do Tribunal de Justiça, davam descontos acima dos reivindicados por eles mesmos." Em seguida, o MP também decidiu se retirar da ação, que só não foi extinta porque o Sinco farma, que também era autor do processo, continuou na briga. "A ação deveria ser extinta", afirma Memória. Contrariado, o sindicato das farmácias decidiu processar também o MP, por não aceitar a revogação do limite de descontos.

(...)

O caso protagonizado pela Drogaria São Paulo é apenas um indicador de quanto o tema da concorrência ainda é ignorado no país. "Nossa história de competição é curta", afirma Pereira Neto, da FGV. "A economia brasileira permaneceu fechada ao comércio exterior até a década de 90, além de termos um histórico longo de controle de preços por parte do governo. O contraste com países como os Estados Unidos é abissal. Enquanto a lei de concorrência americana tem mais de um século, a legislação brasileira atual é de 1994. O órgão que regula a concorrência por lá é de 1903, enquanto o Cade, em sua versão atual, tem menos de 15 anos -- criado em 1962, só começou a ganhar força nos anos 90. Além disso, a lei americana sobre o tema é clara -- e a Justiça cumpre sua missão de fazer com que seja aplicada. Por aqui, por mais que as empresas se esforcem para agir dentro da legalidade, o misto de legislação confusa e lentidão dos órgãos judiciais torna o terreno pantanoso para todos. Quem sofre com isso, como se vê, é o consumidor.

----
http://portalexame.abril.com.br/revista/exame/edicoes/0902/economia/m0138768.html

[Alenônimo]

Esse é o nosso Brasil.

[Lua]

Vai entender... Coitado de quem utiliza remédios caros e que não são fornecidos pelos governos...

[Fabi]

É nisso que dá o Estado meter o bedelho onde não é chamado...

[Pregador]

O MP também né?. Mais incompetente impossível...

[Nightstalker]

E agora, estatolátras?

[Dbohr]

Não sou nenhum Estatólatra, mas não é apenas no Brasil, não. Reparem nos meus grifos logo abaixo da manchete:

WASHINGTON, June 28 — Striking down an antitrust rule nearly a century old, the Supreme Court ruled today that it is no longer automatically unlawful for manufacturers and distributors to agree on setting minimum retail prices.


Supreme Court's DecisionThe decision will give producers significantly more leeway, though not unlimited power, to dictate retail prices and to restrict the flexibility of discounters.

Five justices said the new rule could, in some instances, lead to more competition and better service. But four dissenting justices agreed with the submission of 37 states and consumer groups that the abandonment of the old rule would lead to significantly higher prices and less competition for consumer and other goods.

The court struck down the 96-year-old rule that resale price maintenance agreements were an automatic, or per se, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In its place, the court instructed judges considering such agreements for possible antitrust violations to apply a case-by-case approach, known as a “rule of reason,” to assess their impact on competition.

The decision was the latest in a string of opinions this term to overturn Supreme Court precedents. It marked the latest in a line of Supreme Court victories for big businesses and antitrust defendants. And it was the latest of the court’s antitrust decisions in recent years to reject rules that had prohibited various marketing agreements between companies.

The Bush administration, along with economists of the Chicago school, had argued that the blanket prohibition against resale price maintenance agreements was archaic and counterproductive because, they said, some resale price agreements actually promote competition.

For example, they said, such agreements can make it easier for a new producer by assuring retailers that they will be able to recoup their investments in helping to market the product. And they said some distributors could be unfairly harmed by others — like Internet-based retailers — that could offer discounts because they would not be incurring the expenses of providing product demonstrations and other specialized consumer services.

A majority of the court agreed that the flat ban on price agreements discouraged these and other marketing practices that could be helpful to competition.

“In sum, it is a flawed antitrust doctrine that serves the interests of lawyers — by creating legal distinctions that operate as traps for the unaware — more than the interests of consumers — by requiring manufacturers to choose second-best options to achieve sound business objectives,” the court said in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

But in his dissent, portions of which he read from the bench, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said there was no compelling reason to overturn a century’s worth of Supreme Court decisions that had affirmed the prohibition on resale maintenance agreements.

“The only safe predictions to make about today’s decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail and that it will create considerable legal turbulence as lower courts seek to develop workable principles,” he wrote. “I do not believe that the majority has shown new or changed conditions sufficient to warrant overruling a decision of such long standing.”

During the period from 1937 to 1975 when Congress allowed the states to adopt laws that permitted retail price fixing, economists estimated that such agreements covered about 10 percent of consumer good purchases. In today’s dollars, Justice Breyer estimated that the agreements translate to a higher annual average bill for a family of four of roughly $750 to $1,000.

The dissent was signed by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The case involved an appeal of a judgment of $1.2 million against Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. after it cut off Kay’s Kloset, a suburban Dallas shop, for refusing to honor Leegin’s no-discount policy. The judgment was automatically tripled under antitrust law.

Leegin’s marketing strategy for finding a niche in the highly competitive world of small leather goods was to sell its “Brighton” line of fashion accessories through small boutiques that could offer personalized service. Retailers were required to accept a no-discounting policy.

After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, upheld the judgment and said it was bound by Supreme Court precedent, Leegin took the case to the Supreme Court. Unless it is settled, the case, Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSK Inc., will now be sent down to a lower court to apply the new standard.

The Supreme Court adopted the flat ban on resale price agreements between manufacturers and retailers in 1911, when it founded that the Dr. Miles Medical Company had violated the Sherman act. The company had sought to sell medicine only to distributors who agreed to resell them at set prices. The court said such agreements benefit only the distributors, not consumers, and set a rule making such agreements unlawful.

Justice Kennedy said today that the court was not bound by the 1911 precedent because of the “widespread agreement” among economists that resale price maintenance agreements can promote competition.

“Vertical agreements establishing minimum resale prices can have either pro-competitive or anticompetitive effects, depending upon the circumstances in which they are formed,” he wrote.

But Justice Breyer said in his dissent that the court had failed to justify the overturning of the rule, or that there was significant evidence to show that price agreements would often benefit consumers. He said courts would have a difficult time sorting out the price agreements that help consumers from those that harm them.

“The upshot is, as many economists suggest, sometimes resale price maintenance can prove harmful, sometimes it can bring benefits,” he wrote. “But before concluding that courts should consequently apply a rule of reason, I would ask such questions as, how often are harms or benefits likely to occur? How easy is it to separate the beneficial sheep from the antitrust goats?”

“My own answer,” he concluded, “is not very easily.”

fonte: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/business/28cnd-bizcourt.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

[HSette]

Não sou nenhum Estatólatra, mas não é apenas no Brasil, não. Reparem nos meus grifos logo abaixo da manchete:

WASHINGTON, June 28 — Striking down an antitrust rule nearly a century old, the Supreme Court ruled today that it is no longer automatically unlawful for manufacturers and distributors to agree on setting minimum retail prices.


Supreme Court's DecisionThe decision will give producers significantly more leeway, though not unlimited power, to dictate retail prices and to restrict the flexibility of discounters.

Five justices said the new rule could, in some instances, lead to more competition and better service. But four dissenting justices agreed with the submission of 37 states and consumer groups that the abandonment of the old rule would lead to significantly higher prices and less competition for consumer and other goods.

The court struck down the 96-year-old rule that resale price maintenance agreements were an automatic, or per se, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In its place, the court instructed judges considering such agreements for possible antitrust violations to apply a case-by-case approach, known as a “rule of reason,” to assess their impact on competition.

The decision was the latest in a string of opinions this term to overturn Supreme Court precedents. It marked the latest in a line of Supreme Court victories for big businesses and antitrust defendants. And it was the latest of the court’s antitrust decisions in recent years to reject rules that had prohibited various marketing agreements between companies.

The Bush administration, along with economists of the Chicago school, had argued that the blanket prohibition against resale price maintenance agreements was archaic and counterproductive because, they said, some resale price agreements actually promote competition.

For example, they said, such agreements can make it easier for a new producer by assuring retailers that they will be able to recoup their investments in helping to market the product. And they said some distributors could be unfairly harmed by others — like Internet-based retailers — that could offer discounts because they would not be incurring the expenses of providing product demonstrations and other specialized consumer services.

A majority of the court agreed that the flat ban on price agreements discouraged these and other marketing practices that could be helpful to competition.

“In sum, it is a flawed antitrust doctrine that serves the interests of lawyers — by creating legal distinctions that operate as traps for the unaware — more than the interests of consumers — by requiring manufacturers to choose second-best options to achieve sound business objectives,” the court said in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

But in his dissent, portions of which he read from the bench, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said there was no compelling reason to overturn a century’s worth of Supreme Court decisions that had affirmed the prohibition on resale maintenance agreements.

“The only safe predictions to make about today’s decision are that it will likely raise the price of goods at retail and that it will create considerable legal turbulence as lower courts seek to develop workable principles,” he wrote. “I do not believe that the majority has shown new or changed conditions sufficient to warrant overruling a decision of such long standing.”

During the period from 1937 to 1975 when Congress allowed the states to adopt laws that permitted retail price fixing, economists estimated that such agreements covered about 10 percent of consumer good purchases. In today’s dollars, Justice Breyer estimated that the agreements translate to a higher annual average bill for a family of four of roughly $750 to $1,000.

The dissent was signed by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The case involved an appeal of a judgment of $1.2 million against Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. after it cut off Kay’s Kloset, a suburban Dallas shop, for refusing to honor Leegin’s no-discount policy. The judgment was automatically tripled under antitrust law.

Leegin’s marketing strategy for finding a niche in the highly competitive world of small leather goods was to sell its “Brighton” line of fashion accessories through small boutiques that could offer personalized service. Retailers were required to accept a no-discounting policy.

After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, upheld the judgment and said it was bound by Supreme Court precedent, Leegin took the case to the Supreme Court. Unless it is settled, the case, Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSK Inc., will now be sent down to a lower court to apply the new standard.

The Supreme Court adopted the flat ban on resale price agreements between manufacturers and retailers in 1911, when it founded that the Dr. Miles Medical Company had violated the Sherman act. The company had sought to sell medicine only to distributors who agreed to resell them at set prices. The court said such agreements benefit only the distributors, not consumers, and set a rule making such agreements unlawful.

Justice Kennedy said today that the court was not bound by the 1911 precedent because of the “widespread agreement” among economists that resale price maintenance agreements can promote competition.

“Vertical agreements establishing minimum resale prices can have either pro-competitive or anticompetitive effects, depending upon the circumstances in which they are formed,” he wrote.

But Justice Breyer said in his dissent that the court had failed to justify the overturning of the rule, or that there was significant evidence to show that price agreements would often benefit consumers. He said courts would have a difficult time sorting out the price agreements that help consumers from those that harm them.

“The upshot is, as many economists suggest, sometimes resale price maintenance can prove harmful, sometimes it can bring benefits,” he wrote. “But before concluding that courts should consequently apply a rule of reason, I would ask such questions as, how often are harms or benefits likely to occur? How easy is it to separate the beneficial sheep from the antitrust goats?”

“My own answer,” he concluded, “is not very easily.”

fonte: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/business/28cnd-bizcourt.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

E aí, mercadólatras. 
 

[Alenônimo]

Isso só mostra que um capitalismo mais puro é uma solução melhor do que deixar o estado controlar tudo, e que não temos um capitalismo muito bem aplicado.

Agora que eu não me interesso por socialismo mesmo!

[Dbohr]

Não estou defendendo o socialismo, Alê. Passei dessa fase faz tempo. Apenas de demonstrar que isso não acontece apenas no Brasil

[Luiz Souto]

Interessante mas não vi nenhuma razão para uma divisão "estatólatras x mercadólatras" neste tópico.
Tem é a tentativa de impedir uma concorrência comercial , não por "esquerdistas-socialistas-estatólatras", mas por um sindicato patronal ( Sincofarma deve ser Sindicato do Comércio Farmacêutico ou parecido) apoiados inicialmente por um promotor no mínimo incompetente. O CADE , a quem foi feita a denúncia conforme a matéria ,concluiu por unanimidade que ela era improcedente; quem mantém a questão é o sindicato patronal.
Ou seja , quem prejudica o livre comércio no Ceará são os comerciantes cearenses ( ao menos os do Sincofarma)

[Dbohr]

É que quase tudo aqui vira motivo para mais um debate acrimonioso (e muitas vezes sem sentido) entre direita e esquerda, socialismo e capitalismo, etc.

Não dá para levar a sério, mas às vezes é legal provocar

[HSette]

Interessante mas não vi nenhuma razão para uma divisão "estatólatras x mercadólatras" neste tópico.

E não tem mesmo não.

O domingão está muito parado, é só pra botar lenha na fogueira.

[Luiz Souto]

Interessante mas não vi nenhuma razão para uma divisão "estatólatras x mercadólatras" neste tópico.

E não tem mesmo não.

O domingão está muito parado, é só pra botar lenha na fogueira.

Ah, então tá então! 

[Barata Tenno]

Tudo culpa dos Chavistas.............





Ou das Olavetes.............


Não sei.......... confuso.......... dor de cabeça...........



Rsrs

[West]

Que coisa loca, balaio de gato da bixiga!

O MP não tinha nada que se meter na história. Não é sua atribuição institucional defender interesses privados. Quem se sentiu prejudicado que fosse atrás do prejuízo. Como isso aconteceu e, ainda por cima, a denúncia foi aceita não dá prá entender. O MP não tem legitimidade prá defender interresses de particulares. Deste de quando MP virou escritório de advocacia?
Dampping não é crime contra a economia popular e sim contra o mercado!
Como dito, isso que dá meter o bedelho.

[Dbohr]

Dumping