Action Figure Hot Toys Iron Man 3 1/6th scale Pepper Potts & Mark IX Collectible Figures

[ali032373]

You don't understand is pretty much my point. This is not illegal. You can in fact call the ftc. The book keeping was an explanation as to what the benefit and use of illegal tying is for...

Your example about car manufactures is actually correct. The whole point of this "tying" is limiting of fair trade. This does not do that. Not even close.

I never said it was illegal. My point was that it MIGHT be. Sometimes it is. And the point of tying is to make you buy 2 products instead of one. Sometimes when one product is inferior or in lesser demand.

Ask yourself this: Why can't I just buy the mk 9?? When the consumer can't buy them separately it raises a red flag.

 

[Motuxmen]

Your first good point. However, There are some items that cannot be "untied". For ex you can't buy a car without metal in it. Or say I want to buy shoelaces without the plastic caps. The materials are so integral and intertwined with the product that they become one.

And your comment on the US can't do anything to a chinese company is waaaay off. Once you put an item into the US stream of commerce you open yourself up to a ton of regulation, enforcement, policing, etc. The US can't do anything about commerce laws in China but don't think for a moment a foreign company can just sell products here without any oversight.

And your comment on tying to sell an illegal product makes no sense. you're tough to keep up with because your points are so scattered.

I didn't say that they couldn't do anything to them. I said they couldn't do anything with that law. It's a U.S. Antitrust law. It doesn't apply. Yes they can stop importing of goods. Which is why I said it would fall under international trade not antitrust. And there's nothing illegal so it doesn't matter.


And yes, I know you can't buy a car without metal. I was making a point that unless you tear a product down to atoms everything sold has some form of "tied" product. But the legal definition is different then just bundled items.

Just becuase this is a bundled product does not mean it's a tied product, in relation to the legal term and what's illegal.

 

[Motuxmen]

I never said it was illegal. My point was that it MIGHT be. Sometimes it is. And the point of tying is to make you buy 2 products instead of one. Sometimes when one product is inferior or in lesser demand.

Ask yourself this: Why can't I just buy the mk 9?? When the consumer can't buy them separately it raises a red flag.

It obvious why you can't buy them seperate. But there's nothing illegal. Not even a maybe. Is it the best deal for a consumer. No. But that doesn't approach illegal. And even if it where, the most the U.S. Could do is stop importing and how exactly is that better?

 

[sabin23]

Unlikely. But perhaps something as close as possible, like their Ada Wong body. With the shirt on, it's hard to tell if she has seemless or jointed arms.

You're probably right that it'll be similar to Ada Wong.

Just curious whether her elbows and shoulders would show the articulation joints (if we were to pose Pepper in the sports bra scene). I remember people complaining about the Gamora rubber body - but that was due to fragility issues.

 

[ali032373]

It obvious why you can't buy them seperate. But there's nothing illegal. Not even a maybe. Is it the best deal for a consumer. No. But that doesn't approach illegal. And even if it where, the most the U.S. Could do is stop importing and how exactly is that better?

First, you keep editing your posts after I respond. Really makes this no fun.

Second, in your question what could the US do besides ban the import? The painfully obvious is MAKING THEM UNTIE THE PRODUCT. make them sell the figures separately. That's how the anti-trust applies and that's what's best for consumers. neither figure is integral to the existence of the other (unlike my shoestring example).

third, I'm not even clear at this stage if you even think this is or isn't a tied product. I can tell you it is. My point was never that this was illegal. It happens all the time and it's been going on for nearly a century. My point is that this might be an illegal tying. That's all.

 

[Mugatu]

Holy crap.....another thread spiraling out of control by a Motuxmen argument.

 

[Onie]

Drats! Not again! Just got my MMS 282 and I'm looking at another Mark VII variant! LoL! So, who's with me since I may have to part out with the set once it comes out this Yule! Going to get Stark's girl and her hair accessories, errr her accessories only plus the two helmets.

 

[Brainiac]

Holy crap.....another thread spiraling out of control by a Motuxmen argument.

Just kidding, I'm not surprised

 

[Cap'n Cook]

Fantastic likeness.

 

[jedijim3002]

Looks great!

 

[CaptainChunk]

I went ahead and preordered the exclusive two pack, even though I know I'll be kicking myself later when the regular one is discounted Got to have that light up helmet that I'll never bother putting the batteries in. Hah

 

[Shawpaw]

Holy crap.....another thread spiraling out of control by a Motuxmen argument.

 

[tdk5]

From the Cornell University Law website:

Tying Agreement- An agreement in which the seller conditions the sale of one product (the "tying" product) on the buyer's agreement to purchase a separate product (the "tied" product) from the seller. Alternatively, it is also considered a tying arrangement when the seller conditions the sale of the tying product on the buyer's agreement not to purchase the tied product from any other seller. See Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 541 (1992).

Tying arrangements are not necessarily unlawful. Antitrust concerns are raised by tying arrangements to the extent that they are used to maintain or augment the seller's pre-existing market power or impair competition on the merits in the market for the tied product.

Where a tying arrangement is unlawful, it may be illegal per se or illegal under the rule of reason. The requirements for a per se violation are: the forced purchase of one commodity in order to obtain a separate desired commodity or service; possession by the seller of sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to restrain free trade in the market for the tied product; and that the arrangement affects a not insubstantial amount of commerce in the market for the tied product. If the requirements for a per se violation are not met, a tying arrangement may be illegal under the rule of reason if: it results in an unreasonable restraint on trade in the relevant market under § 1 of the Sherman Act; or its probable effect is a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market under § 3 of the Clayton Act.


You can file a complaint with the FTC and get a ruling if anyone is interested.

I don't think HT's intention of bundling together figures is to : (1) "maintain or augment the seller's pre-existing market power", or (2) impair competition on the merits in the market for the tied product, or (3) restrain free trade in the market for the tied product, or (4) to substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market. So, I would think there is absolutely no legal case whatsoever against HT in this instance.

Seems more like a marketing ploy more than anything else; HT probably thinks that the Pepper Potts figure on its own won't sell too well, and hence the bundling with an item that's more likely to spur demand (Mark 9).

Personally, I think that if anyone could successfully sue HT for doing this, what's to stop people from suing other companies that are doing something similar, like Adobe that won't sell you their latest Photoshop or Illustrator software unless you subscribe to their crazily expensive Creative Cloud subscription system, or Microsoft who similarly won't sell you their latest Office software unless you are on the 365 subscription?

 

[Y4NK33 PL4N3T]

Came for Pepper info and a law debate broke out.

 

[Bidmaster25]

Came for Pepper info and a law debate broke out.

 

[zackhigh1226]

Re: Hot Toys Iron Man 3 1/6th scale Pepper Potts & Mark IX Collectible Figures

Came for Pepper info and a law debate broke out.

Like I said last night, this thread is just one massive cauldron full of arguments.

 

[Manannin]

"well your honour, it's like this. They wouldn't let me buy the man dolly on its own. They said I had to buy the girl dolly too. I didn't want to do that as the hair looks like a barbie and I don't buy kids toys. I think it's really unfair. So, they're going to prison right? No? Oh. Well that was a waste of legal fees. I could have bought so many boy dollies with that money."

 

[zackhigh1226]

"well your honour, it's like this. They wouldn't let me buy the man dolly on its own. They said I had to buy the girl dolly too. I didn't want to do that as the hair looks like a barbie and I don't buy kids toys. I think it's really unfair. So, they're going to prison right? No? Oh. Well that was a waste of legal fees. I could have bought so many boy dollies with that money."

 

[chewdeezy]

"well your honour, it's like this. They wouldn't let me buy the man dolly on its own. They said I had to buy the girl dolly too. I didn't want to do that as the hair looks like a barbie and I don't buy kids toys. I think it's really unfair. So, they're going to prison right? No? Oh. Well that was a waste of legal fees. I could have bought so many boy dollies with that money."

Hahahahaha.

 

[Tildonrichard1]

I really want a Pepper and i really like that armor but i do not see any resemblance whatsoever to Gwyneth in that sculpt at all. Decisions, decisions. I really doubt they will do another figure of Pepper Potts in the future. I am just torn.