United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

The total cost of just the parts for a Schwinn Varsity made in the United States might have been $70, but a Taiwanese producer could deliver the whole bike for that price, Richard Schwinn said. “Once that came up, you say, ‘Oh, party’s over.’ ” Compounding the problem was that Schwinn had failed to invest… Continue reading United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

More and more cyclists, especially younger buyers, began to insist on stronger steel alloys , responsive frame geometry, aluminum components, advanced derailleur shifting, and multiple gears. When they failed to find what they wanted at Schwinn, they went elsewhere. While the Paramount still sold in limited numbers to this market, the model’s customer base began… Continue reading United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Fillet-brazing is an alternative method of constructing high-quality lightweight bicycle frames without the use of lugs. It is within these boundary lines that we must analyze the present case. Method of distribution of a single brand of bicycles, amounting to less than one-seventh of the market, constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce among… Continue reading United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Faced with a downward sales spiral, Schwinn went into bankruptcy in 1992. The company and name were bought by the Zell/Chilmark Fund, an investment group, in 1993. Zell moved Schwinn’s corporate headquarters to Boulder, Colorado. Another problem was Schwinn’s failure to design and market its bicycles to specific, identifiable buyers, especially the growing number of… Continue reading United States v Arnold, Schwinn & Co. :: 388 U.S. 365 1967 :: Justia US Supreme Court Center