Straus and Straus v. American Publishers' Assn.
Headline: Publishers’ and booksellers’ price‑fixing agreements struck down; Court reverses New York ruling and holds such nationwide efforts to enforce retail book prices violate federal antitrust law, restoring competition for retailers.
Holding: The Court reversed the New York decision and held that publishers’ and booksellers’ agreements to enforce retail prices for copyrighted books violate the Sherman Antitrust Act and are not shielded by the copyright law.
- Bars publishers and booksellers from using copyright to enforce retail price‑fixing.
- Allows retailers cut off from suppliers to seek damages and injunctive relief.
- Affirms federal antitrust reach over national book trade practices.
Summary
Background
A group of department stores that sold books at lower prices sued national publishers and booksellers’ associations after they were cut off from supplies. The stores said the Associations agreed to sell copyrighted books only to retailers who kept set retail prices and to blacklist those who cut prices, which harmed the stores’ business. State courts initially treated the agreement as unlawful for uncopyrighted books but as lawful for copyrighted books because of the copyright monopoly.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the copyright law lets publishers and booksellers make nationwide rules to enforce resale prices or whether the Sherman Antitrust Act forbids those agreements. The Court reviewed earlier decisions and held that copyright does not give owners the right to enter into agreements that unlawfully restrain trade or create monopolies. The Court relied on existing reasoning about patent and copyright limits and found the Associations’ nationwide practices did restrain competition in copyrighted books.
Real world impact
The decision means publishers and booksellers cannot use the copyright statute to justify nationwide price‑fixing or blacklists that block retailers from getting books. Retailers who were cut off may pursue relief for harms caused. The Court reversed the state court’s protection of the agreement for copyrighted books and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. The Court also noted it was unnecessary here to decide whether a Sherman Act claim can originally be brought in state court.
Dissents or concurrances
The Court of Appeals previously had three justices who dissented, believing the agreements were unlawful restraints of trade and that later decisions supported that view.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?