[cratermoon]

Somewhat of a dissent: A law that protects dealers from being screwed over by manufacturers and distributors is a good thing, but the court said that the law protects dealers for car maker G from being harmed by the actions of G, not the actions of car maker T. But if car maker T can act in ways that harm dealers for other car maker G, then some protection is probably needed.

I would expect that the standing issue would be different if dealer for G could show harm by the actions of maker T.

This article gives more info about the decision: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/15/us-tesla-motors-ma...

[thisjepisje]

What's this thing about protecting others from harm? Isn't harming your opponent what competition is all about? Not directly harming them, of course, but simply by being better than them, which is the case here.

[cratermoon]

There's a specific legal definition of "harm" that applies. Someone with experience in litigating that kind of thing could explain it, but like most things legal, it isn't what the dictionary says.

[dang]

Thanks. Url changed to that from http://www.pddnet.com/news/2014/09/court-tesla-motors-can-se....

[chrismcb]

How do you expect maker T harming dealer G? Other than making a better product and outselling G? Maker t can't force maker G to change its relationship with dealer G or undercut G. I would expect that if maker T is harming dealer G other than by normal market forces, then they are probably already doing something illegal and no further protection is actually needed.

[cratermoon]

That a good question, and apparently the court used something like that line of reasoning in this case: that a car dealer could only be harmed (in the legal sense) by the car maker they sell for.