eBay vrs42?

[vrs]

> > Broken down
> > 1) two parties can cooporate in order to lower
> >     the selling price of an item.  agreed?
> > 2) a lowered selling price deprives the seller
> >     of revenue.  agreed?
> > 3) the seller has an expectation of a fair play,
> >    just as buyers have one.  agreed?
> > 4) therefore, I view it unrighteous to collude
> >    to lower the price.
>
> You forgot
> 3.5) depriving the seller of revenue in any way is unfair.
> or perhaps
> 3.5) depriving the seller of revenue in this way is unfair.
> or something else along those lines.
>
> I think that is the part that most of the disagreement has been over.
> It's certainly the part *I* disagree with.

OK, what makes it dubious (IMO) is the assumption (on my part) that David
and I are in fact the total market at this moment for the boards in
question.  Which is actually fairly likely.

This puts us in a monopoly position with respect to demand, which in turn
requires exceptional care with respect to business ethics.

In essence, this can create a situation in which 3.5 can be argued.

    Vince