One price to rule them all

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on a case with dramatic implications for consumers everywhere. At stake is a 100-year-old law that makes it illegal for manufacturers and retailers to collude in setting prices (someone should explain that to Apple), and a decision to overturn the law could mean prices everywhere start marching up.

This excellent blog post examines the legal precedent and the potential impact in a society where consumers have been empowered to comparison shop via the internet. The author also looks at the impact of overturning this law, as internet retailers like Newegg.com may no longer be able to undercut brick-and-mortar stores (disclosure: I love shopping at Newegg):

Importantly, this case points a dagger at the heart of the most consumer-friendly aspects of the Internet. The Internet has shifted power to the consumer in two ways. First, it allows consumers to search for and gather information in a cost-effective, efficient manner. Second, it provides a low-cost means of retailing, making it easy for discounters to offer products to the public. This combination squeezes excess profits and inefficiencies out of product prices. Retail price maintenance seeks to short circuit this extremely consumer friendly process. By setting minimum prices, manufacturers can build in excess margins for themselves and for their favored retailers—prices that consumers have no choice but to pay.

This blogger clearly has his side of the issue staked out and it's my only source so far. Can anyone tell me why this would be a good thing?

Update 4:47 - here's some post-argument analysis from SCOTUSblog