Ten Thousand Commandments, by Harold Fleming (1951)
 The Abolition of Antitrust, by Gary Hull (2005)
- "price gouging"/"overpricing" -- "businesses are held guilty of overcharging if they price their products as high as the market will bear"
- "predatory pricing" -- on the other hand they are guilty of dumping if they keep cutting their costs and lower prices below what some busybody feels is right
- "price-fixing" -- "they charge the same as their competitors happen to charge"
Conspiring to fix prices is indefensible under any economic theory. If three companies who have 96% of the market agree not to compete with each other and inflate prices, that’s bad. Your grandmother and a sophisticated Econ PhD would agree.
“Charge the same as their competitors happen to charge” also isn’t price fixing. That would be parallel pricing and is entirely legal. Price fixing is as described above, conspiring together in restraint of trade. And it’s really hard to prove without a whistleblower or some very clear (repeated) pricing moves that are statistically highly improbable to have been the result of coincidence.
As for why the other 4% of the market doesn’t step up and grab the market share, some industries just don’t work like that. It costs $10 billion or more to build a chip fab and doesn’t happen overnight. It could be that the 4% player is at capacity and is selling out by slightly underpricing, but doesn’t have enough production to affect the market.
There are certainly rapacious attorneys out there. But Samsung here is a victim? Micron? If the charges are specious, they’ll sort it out in short order and the legal fees to do so won’t even cause them to break a sweat. I’ll save my pity for those who deserve it.
The two books I referenced contain detailed accounts of how various companies have been preyed upon under the guise of these antitrust laws, including sending innocent businessmen to jail.
No mention of any evidence that this actually happened. The way I read it, the only "proof" they have is that these memory makers hold 96% of the market, and that the prices skyrocketed at some point.
Of course, that leaves out what happened with the companies that hold the other 4% of the memory market.
If they weren't involved in the scheme, we would expect to see an attempt by them to increase the production of memory to take advantage of the unforeseen boom in memory prices.
And if they were involved in the scheme, why aren't they mentioned in the lawsuit?
I don't buy this claim at all. Until I see some hard evidence to explain the above, I am inclined to agree with mkempe's conclusion that these lawyers are just parasites.