Originally posted by dcshooter Eh, it's the Supreme Court's most recent word on the subject, so I don't know if you could really call it "bad law." A departure yes, but also currently binding precedent.
Also, we don't know if Pentax is actually selectively enforcing it or not - other retailers could simply not be reducing their price despite the opportunity. A quick search shows several on-line retailers with similar prices on new stock of this lens, but it's unclear whether they are Pentax-authorized dealers or not. Adorama is still lat the old price. Pentax's very small position in the market also weighs against enforcement here, since their policy has no effect on the numerous other comparable lenses on the market (whether they are pentax-compatible or not). Likewise, neither sua sponte governmental nor citizen enforcement would be likely in this case since the stakes are so small. If it were Canon or Nikon, who knows? Maybe it would be a different story.
The Supreme Court, despite some people's views, is not Divine. They have, and will, make bad law. There are dozens of easy examples but I need offer only 1 -
Dred Scott v. Sandford .
To forestall those who will say that is ancient history, here are a couple more:
Korematsu v. U.S.
Kelo v. New London