• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Legal arguments about Hypex and NORD licensing

Jul 6, 2019
Sin City, NV
Sorry for the long-winded historical explanation! This started out as a short post and then it wasn't...

*It was more complicated than this in practice, and I've conveniently ignored the complex relationship between the authorities of the Crown and the Church here, which was in fact a key trigger for Henry II's desire to consolidate his power through the rule of precedent in the first place.
Nothing wrong with a thorough explanation. The 'complex relationship' continues today (by proxies mostly) IMO... at least the influence and interference does - on both sides of the state-church divide.

Another member has made me aware of this link:
It's long and difficult.
Considering the topic, I'd actually consider that 'short and simple' in comparison to the source documents. HAHA.

Situation: Corporation 1 and Corporation 2 have factories in Country Alpha where they manufacture Widget X. Corporation 1 and Corporation 2 agree to charge higher prices for Widget X. They sell Widget X to customers around the world, including in the United States.
Discussion: Corporation 1 and Corporation 2 manufacture Widget X outside the United States and sell Widget X in or for delivery to the United States. Thus their conspiracy to fix the price of Widget X is conduct involving U.S. import commerce. Accordingly, the conduct is prohibited by Section 1 of the Sherman Act as a conspiracy in restraint of “trade . . . with foreign nations,” and Section 6a would not exempt this conspiracy from the antitrust laws. The circumstance that the price-fixing agreement concerned worldwide sales and did not specifically identify sales into the United States would not change the analysis. Likewise, even if the sales of Widget X in import commerce were a relatively small proportion or dollar amount of the price-fixed goods sold worldwide, the analysis would remain unchanged. (88)
Once again, despite being a citizen of the country that's being 'protected' (protective?) in this case... I still call foul on it! Then again I guess economic emperialism isn't exactly new...

@Ron Texas Thanks for posting link here... I'd say simply having access to that 'Cliffs Notes' summary might have kept the fires in a slow burn.

The bottom line is that now any violation has already been resolved (if there was indeed one in the first place) and the number of producers of very high-powered, and reasonably (ish?) priced amps should increase. A win-win for everyone... even attorneys. :p

The example is 'fairly' close but still isn't actually directly pertinent as far as I can see... since Corp 1 and Corp 2 weren't in collusion as much as Corp 1 simply preventing (potentially) Corp 2 from playing the game at all.

Not sure that any of this would apply one way or another to what would really be a simple contract dispute in a foreign jurisdiction... but if there was enough money in it... I'm sure the US would be involved. LOL!
Last edited:
Top Bottom