Main Points: - Economic law is prone to change: as Bernard Mandeville put it in 1705, "Their laws and cloths were equally/ Objects of mutability;/ for what was well done for a time,/ in half a year became a crime;" - If that is broadly so, it is even more so in what concerns a number of economic actions that fall under the antitrust laws, namely, Resale Price Maintenance (RPM); - The story of RPM in the USA is so full of U-turns that leaves your head spinning; and even if you cut that long story short, its "legal technicality" used to read like a Monty Python sketch (don´t trust my word on that: check Gavil/Kovacic/Baker, 2002, p. 362); -(and, by the way, forget trying to square that unfolding framework with the English one); - All in all, there seems to be no compelling reason for RPM to fall under a per se prohibition under the Sherman Act - as the dissent of Oliver W. Holmes to Dr. Miles pointed, and the Supreme Court, albeit only 96 years after, acknowledged (in Leegin). - Despite being a little late, it still runs ahead of the "true believers", both at home and abroad, who keep punishing business for RPM and hoping for a second coming of Dr. Miles to America. (Congress was working on that). One must show temperance: they can not pull it apart of their remaining antitrust beliefs. What will be of the rest of it, if they realize they have been wrong all along in this one? - Worst of all, is the suspicion that the twists and turns of the law on RPM always worked for the better to the ones with the upper hand. Since these are invariably the most powerful, but not always the same, one can expect the legal frontier on RPM to keep moving back and forth. So Dr. Miles is not going to RIP. But then, as I said, RPM is economic law, and economic law is prone to change.