Economics and law...
I don't see how anyone is arguing this to be illegal in ANY manner. Market economics (basic, SIMPLE supply-demand) allows the market to determine a set of prices at which an item will sell. This is a downward sloping curve of some sort. (This does not account for incidental short-run speculation, so please don't bring up perceived demand pricing.)
Along this curve rest different valuations for price points (cost, max economic profits, max true profits, et al). By setting a pricing floor, Lane #1 is simply exercising its contractural rights as a manufacturer. If you don't like it, don't buy our product. This is actually a well-employed marketing strategy by many industries. People grumble that Lane #1 is going to run itself out of business. Maybe, but probably not.
I remember (from Econ 130) that bowling is considered to be a regressive industry, thriving during weaker economies. Now that the PBA is pushing HARD, maybe that image might change. Lane #1 is banking on the change of image.
In a stable economy, affluent individuals gravitate toward items and acquisitions that are somewhat exclusive. Case in point: Jaguar. (I don't like the cars myself.) Jaguar owners are willing to spend more money on these vehicles because they know they are limited in number (200,000 per year). Jaguar dealers are told a minimum price at which they are allowed to sell the cars. (Probably true for other car brands, as well... but that would only fuel my point.)
Now adapt this rational to the bowling ball manufacturing scene. Lane #1 came out with the Buzzsaw guarantee with a retail price point of $269 or whatever it was. Over time, their balls started selling closer to the retail price point of competing manufacturers. Since Lane #1 doesn't pour its own balls, they pay some sort of commission structure to Brunswick for each pour.
Whereas other manufacturers (with their own facilities) can release 30+ balls a year and saturate the market, Lane #1 doesn't have this liberty.
I am guessing the price floor is a means to limit demand to an exclusive group which is willing to pay a premium for Lane #1 products. By restricting the price at which proshops can sell the balls, Lane #1 will limit orders to a level at which supply will closely mimic demand. In doing so, Lane #1 will minimize over saturation of the market with Buzzsaw bowling balls.
Now for the numbers:
Say a Brunswick ball costs $25 in actual production costs. (Not including costs absorbed through R&D, but the actual manufacturing cost of making one ball -- economies of scale notwithstanding.)
Lane #1 needs to pay Brunswick a fee to pour their balls. If Brunswick charges a 20 percent markup, that's $30 per ball poured. I'm thinking it must be closer to $45.
That already places Lane #1 at a premium price over major ball companies.
Now, let's say Lane #1 tried to release its balls like a "normal" ball company. If they blitzed the market with as many balls as they could produce, at some point, they would reach market saturation (similarly to how the larger companies do). However, unlike those manufacturers pouring their own balls, with each ball that is produced, lane #1 has to pay a premium (the $5-$20 difference mentioned above). So, for each ball of over production, Lane #1 absorbs that additional percentage as a penalty.
There are two ways to accommodate this penalty:
1) Restrict production.
2) Pass on the costs of production.
In effect, by instituting the price floor, Lane #1 is possibly lowering customer prices in the long run. (I know, it might not make sense as I stated it, but it does make sense.)
Also, because Lane #1 is a smaller company, they can't spend as much on R&D as larger manufacturers. The Diamond core led to Brunswick's Quantum line. I'm fairly certain that the Buzzsaw patent is about to expire (five years more or so), and it only makes sense for them to establish their name as a premium brand now BEFORE other companies start making generic "diamond cores".
Anyhow, my point is that the price floors are VERY MUCH legal, and actually a sound economic strategy -- in this particular case. Buzzsaw needs to establish itself as a premium product to maintain a market in the current economy of "ball of the month" bowling.
And _that_ is my two cents.
PS: Before anyone says I'm a Saw-head. I'm not. I have owned two Buzzsaws in my life and gave both away. Actually, make that three. The third, I didn't even drill... just gave it away. The balls don't work for me. They may work for some individuals, but not my game.
