Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
If Leica did that, it's probably trademark infringement.
An interesting story: I recently had an opportunity to interview the
principal of one of the bigger model train companies in connection with a
case I was working on. He told me about how he was having some locomotives
made in Korea. He wanted a certain quantity at a certain price (let's say
100 at $100). He attempted to negotiate the price down and when he thought
it was down to $90, he sold. BUT, what really happened was that he got 100
at $90, and the manufacturer made another 20 which it then sold, USING HIS
BOXES, grey market in the United States. The Korean fabricator had reduced
its average cost by upping the production THEN maximized profit by cutting
out the US seller. Sound familiar?
I would bet that Leica made more LHSA models because there was a market for
black paint and the brass plates cost more per unit (fixed costs) to make. I
would guess that a lot of people buying them don't give a fig about the LHSA
logo (or LHSA, for that matter, which is the only thing uniquely LHSA about
the camera. If Leica made zillions of the black paint models sans logo, at
the same time it was selling to LHSA, LHSA people would be steamed. But this
way, it passes without notice. Yes, LHSA gets more members - but Leica is
just shrewdly cutting costs.
In a message dated 7/10/00 4:47:23 PM, Matt.Barker@KutakRock.com writes:
<< John Collier wrote, in part:
"LHSA had nothing to do with Leica's decision to offer
the cameras (with free memberships) to dealers.... If
you did not like the terms you should not have ordered one."
*****
John,
OK, I'll blame Leica too, but that doesn't let LHSA off the hook completely.
How can an organization arrange for a special edition, engraved with its own
logo, no less, publish detailed terms and conditions of purchase, then
neglect to bind the manufacturer not to sell the item through other channels
in ways that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the terms and
conditions? I did like the terms; I just don't like the way they got
"amended."
Matt Barker
- ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <.daemon@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: from rly-ye02.mx.aol.com (rly-ye02.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.199])
by air-ye04.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:47:23 -0400
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [192.147.236.1])
by rly-ye02.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:47:00 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) id NAA26422; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
13:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail03-ord.pilot.net (mail-ord-3.pilot.net [205.243.174.17])
by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA26405; Mon, 10
Jul 2000 13:45:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown-31-128.kutakrock.com ([204.48.31.178]) by
mail03-ord.pilot.net with ESMTP id PAA20475 for
<.leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:45:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from omaex01.KutakRock.com (smtp.kutakrock.com [10.15.172.130]) by
unknown-31-128.kutakrock.com with ESMTP id PAA09632 for
<.leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:45:26 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by OMAEX01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
id <3MQDVX7X>; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:04 -0500
Message-ID: <306D724879FFD21183230008C75B90680335DB@LRAFS01>
From: "Barker, J. Madison" <.Matt.Barker@KutakRock.com>
To: "'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'"
<.leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Subject: [Leica] LHSA M6 Question/Complaint (!!!)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>>