A per se
, a; t, h, e, the; o per se, o; Demy orgon gorgon.-- Keep further from me, O thou illiterate and unlearned hostler!
A per se violation occurs where conduct violates a specific guideline in the form of a statute, ordinance, or rule and a violation of that guideline in turn automatically or"per se" constitutes a violation of FDUTPA.
The rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes referenced in the above-quoted [section] 501.203(3) refer to sources which may serve as a basis for a per se FDUTPA violation.
The unnecessary expansion of the scope of a per se rule means that in future cases, the initial classification of similar agreements could receive even greater emphasis--and carry even higher stakes.
Group boycotts generally refer to agreements among horizontal competitors.(14) Twenty years ago, the Second Circuit held that a two-party vertical agreement may be considered a horizontal group boycott (though not a per se illegal boycott) if it sought to disadvantage a competitor of one of the parties.(15) Subsequently, the Supreme Court clearly rejected this reasoning: "[A] restraint is horizontal not because it has horizontal effects but because it is the product of a horizontal agreement."(16) In Discon, the panel relied on the earlier Second Circuit precedent without addressing the apparent contradiction.(17)
Thus in chapter 6, he argues that the definition of a per se
attribute for one science must define an epistemic substance in another science (p.
A per se rule, it is argued, is less costly than a rule of reason.
A per se rule also is thought to achieve substantial benefits through suppression of anticompetitive behavior.
Applying traditional joint venture theory, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the defendant IPA's maximum fee schedule amounted to a per se
violation (i.e., presumed to be unreasonable without regard to effect on competition) of the antitrust laws and decided that the defendant IPA's price fixing agreement was a necessary part of the integration of resources that made the IPA-HMO effective.
The latter task cannot be undertaken without first answering the general question: When should antitrust law ask a court to declare business practices illegal without a full-scale factual investigation of their effect under the rule of reason, as through application of a per se rule?
In the past decade and a half, for example, the Supreme Court has felt free to overrule a per se rule, (8) qualify another, (9) and narrow a third.
For example, in Socony-Vacuum, the first Supreme Court case to announce a per se
rule in those words, the Court offered the deceptively simple characterization of "combinations operating directly on prices or price structures."(5) Forty-five years later in Northwest Wholesale Stationers the Court came close to stating a rule of reason test when it held that group boycotts were to be characterized as per se unlawful if the group has "market power or exclusive access to an element essential for effective competition."(6)