 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006Band of f------ idiots sues B&H
http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/FactsofCase.html These morons are mad because they sell very EXPENSIVE RC design telescopes. But they have no more right to claim any kind of ownership (and hence the ability to sue) than someone has for suiing over ownership over the law of gravity. The RC telescope was invented in 1910, about 80 years before this company even existed. Also, the telescope industry is not regulated the way the camera industry is. If people sued for every minor breach of accuracy, every company would get sued, along with every retailer. What a waste of money and time. Sounds like these companies selling these telescopes as one thing when they are really something else. False advertising. As for when the RC Telescope was invented that has nothing to do with who bought the rights too it. R > http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/FactsofCase.html > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > company would get sued, along with every retailer. > What a waste of money and time. > Sounds like these companies selling these telescopes as one thing when they > are really something else. False advertising. As for when the RC Telescope > was invented that has nothing to do with who bought the rights too it. > > R No one owns the rights to it. Anymore than the Newtonian, the Schmidt-Cassegrain, the Maksutov, etc. > http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/FactsofCase.html > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > company would get sued, along with every retailer. > What a waste of money and time. I believe that their claim is that the Meade design is not in fact a Ritchey-Chretien design but something else. "Ownership" would apply if the suit was over rights to the name. What they are doing is akin to Caterpillar suing some outfit making gasoline engines for claiming that they ran on a Diesel cycle.  Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) You must understand the rules of the legal system: shake the tree and sees what falls out. There is no morality, only legal process. Lawsuits of this nature are inherent to western legal systems, although the American system has morphed into something even more bizarre than Dickens satirized over 100 years ago in Bleak House, Jarndyce vs Jarndyce, in the 19th century English courts. In the United States the most common profession of politicians at every level is, surprise, lawyer. All judges are lawyers. The common denomination of all lawyers is torts. Hence all politicians, and particularly every judge, has an indisputable financial self-interest in expanding the scope of legal liability and recoverable damages. After all what does a judge do if he/she is not a judge any longer? Retire or practice law. Lawyers make their living in: torts. A conflict of interest? Not if you are a judge, lawyer or lawyer turned politician. They make the rules and they make it up as they go along. At all levels of the American judiciary it is helpful to remember that the esteemed judge is nothing more than an ambulance chaser in a black robe. If you are so naive as to think otherwise consider this famous quote: "The law is what the judges say it is." Research who wrote it and when. Surprise, surprise. Guantanamo or bust. >You must understand the rules of the legal system: shake the tree and sees >what falls out. There is no morality, only legal process. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >In the United States the most common profession of politicians at every >level is, surprise, lawyer. What you describe as a "politician" is more correctly termed a "lawmaker". Given that their primary task is debating and passing legislation, it would seem sensible that at least a significant proportion of their number should have come from a legal background. bmoag skrev: > Lawsuits of this nature are inherent to western legal systems, "Western" must here be taken in the sense of "Anglo-Saxon". On the Continent, tort law isn't the altogether dominating aspect of jurisprudence, and in many European countries, the careers of lawyer and judge are mutually exclusive (although, of course, both require a law exam). Jan B?hme bmoag skrev: > Lawsuits of this nature are inherent to western legal systems, "Western" must here be taken in the sense of "Anglo-Saxon". On the Continent, tort law isn't the altogether dominating aspect of jurisprudence, and in many European countries, the careers of lawyer and judge are mutually exclusive (although, of course, both require a law exam). Jan Böhme Just give it time. The lawyers will discover the EU before too long. It's inevitable. > http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/FactsofCase.html > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > company would get sued, along with every retailer. > What a waste of money and time. It sounds like a fairly simple question, in two parts: 1. Do the manufacturers claim their telescopes are RC telescopes? 2. In fact, are the telescopes in question RC designs or not? If they aren't RC but the manufacturers are selling them as RC, that's false advertising. The RC formula is published, it should not be difficult to determine whether the telescopes are built to that formula or not. Signaturejosh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Updated Infrared Photography Books List: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:23:14 -0800, josh wrote: >> http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/FactsofCase.html >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The RC formula is published, it should not be difficult to determine > whether the telescopes are built to that formula or not. I think the plaintiffs have screwed up. Looking at the Meade site, Meade is not claiming "Ritchey Chretien", they are claiming "Advanced Ritchie Chretien" (in their literature the "advanced" is always capitalized, suggesting that it is part of the name rather than a simple modifier) and defining that as a three element design offering performance similar to the two-element Ritchey Chretien but using only one hyperbolic element, a spherical mirror, and a corrector rather than two hyperbolics. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > If people sued for every minor breach of accuracy, every > company would get sued, along with every retailer. > What a waste of money and time. Law schools graduate tons of new attorneys each year, and the legal profession has morphed into a money-making machine that redistributes wealth often by taking it by force. Just look at all the lawyers that advertise on daytime TV, advertising that they will "fight for your rights" if you had a slip-and-fall incident or were involved in a minor fender-bender. I read somewhere that the legal profession is THE Most Hated Profession in America. It has its share of whores. > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I read somewhere that the legal profession is THE Most Hated Profession in > America. It has its share of whores. It's just that 99% of the lawyers ruin it for the ethical ones. > It's just that 99% of the lawyers ruin it for the ethical ones. 99% +/- 1% to be precise ;) > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I read somewhere that the legal profession is THE Most Hated Profession in > America. It has its share of whores. Hi V700 Jeremy! ;-) Tell me, why are you insulting whores? :-\ Eddie > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > America. It has its share of whores. > ... The last I heard, it is the clients who sue, not the lawyers. Lawyers do not sue because they enjoy it. They sue because some idiot hired them to sue someone else. If americans were not so litigious the number of lawyers would shrink dramatically. >> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > them to sue someone else. If americans were not so litigious the number > of lawyers would shrink dramatically. And yet the lawyers have blocked every effort to address the problem, generally claiming that there would be a "chilling effect" (well, DUH, that's the whole _point_) and that suits that "need to be brought" (i.e. those that put food on _their_ table and not some other lawyer's table) would not. Then there's the whole fiction that lawsuits bring important matters to the attention of the courts so that injustices in the laws can be addressed--and yet the courts never get a chance to address them--personally I'm of the opinion that if once brought a suit _had_ to go to trial the system would be cleaned up pretty quickly--a lot of winnable cases get settled because individually it's cheaper to settle than to go to trial. A few people bringing frivolous suits and then bankrupting themselves when no fat settlement was forthcoming and the jury laughed themselves silly before finding for the defendant would put an end to that sort of nonsense. But then juries can be incredibly stupid too. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > laughed themselves silly before finding for the defendant would put an end > to that sort of nonsense. But then juries can be incredibly stupid too. Another relatively simple solution would be to make the court costs automatically end up on the looser. One of the big problems is the "if we don't win, you don't pay" approach that happens now. If a "plaintiff" can't sue without significant financial risk, they would think twice about going for deep pockets without a substantial case. In most cases, judges have the discretion to apply the winner's legal costs to the looser, but they _very_ seldom apply them to an unsuccessful plaintiff unless the plaintiff has deep pockets. Some say that would prevent the common man from having access to the legal system. But if this were done, legal aid charities would spring up to support people of limitied means who have a real need for justice. Not everyone would see justice; but right now, very, very few frivolous lawsuits see justice (i.e. are thrown out of court); most are just settled with the plaintiff getting an "undisclosed sum" and the defendant "not admitting liability." Austin > Another relatively simple solution would be to make the court costs > automatically end up on the looser. One of the big problems is the "if > we don't win, you don't pay" approach that happens now. If a > "plaintiff" can't sue without significant financial risk, they would > think twice about going for deep pockets without a substantial case. Simple it ain't. Since in litigation, both sides inevitably overestimate their odds of winning, a "loser pays" system would increase the marginal utility of each dollar spent in the effort. Both sides would have a greater incentive to spend more on the case, likely resulting in higher litigation costs. Nor does it help to limit recovery to "reasonable attorney's fees." That just leads to further legislation over what's "reasonable." You can see this in the tobacco settlement and numerous civil rights cases. Since many lawsuits are to determine percentage of responsibility and/or amount of damages rather than to determine who's the "winner," adopting such a system would also require reforming the claims process. > In most cases, judges have the discretion to apply the winner's legal > costs to the looser, but they _very_ seldom apply them to an > unsuccessful plaintiff unless the plaintiff has deep pockets. Under the U.S. system an award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule. A judge may only award attorney's fees as a sanction for a rules violation (such as bringing a frivolous suit), when explicitly provided in legislation, and in a few other specific causes of action such as divorce. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >> Another relatively simple solution would be to make the court costs >> automatically end up on the looser. One of the big problems is the "if [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > incentive to spend more on the case, likely resulting in higher > litigation costs. From the viewpoint of a prospective plaintiff then the bottom line is that's going to cost him more up front regardless and more at the end if he loses, and this is going to make him more likely to bring suit because? Please understand, the objective is not to reduce the cost of each individual lawsuit, the objective is to reduce the number of lawsuits. > Nor does it help to limit recovery to "reasonable attorney's fees." That > just leads to further legislation over what's "reasonable." You can see > this in the tobacco settlement and numerous civil rights cases. While the legislators are wrangling over ways to make lawyers' lives miserable they're not bothering the rest of us, so that looks like a double win to me. > Since many lawsuits are to determine percentage of responsibility and/or > amount of damages rather than to determine who's the "winner," adopting > such a system would also require reforming the claims process. Which probably needs doing anyway. >> In most cases, judges have the discretion to apply the winner's legal >> costs to the looser, but they _very_ seldom apply them to an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > explicitly provided in legislation, and in a few other specific causes > of action such as divorce. Should be required to apply unless there is a compelling reason not to. This would, among other things, prevent rich folks from sueing poor folks into poverty, as Uri Gellar did in an attempt to silence James Randi--Gellar filed several suits, lost all of them, but the cost of Randi's defense bankrupted him. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > From the viewpoint of a prospective plaintiff then the bottom line is > that's going to cost him more up front regardless and more at the end if > he loses, and this is going to make him more likely to bring suit > because? Because his potential win is also higher, and can rationally spend more to ensure the win. Unless, of course, you're only proposing "loser pays" for plaintiffs. > Please understand, the objective is not to reduce the cost of each > individual lawsuit, the objective is to reduce the number of lawsuits. Which it may not do. Let's say a plaintiff believes they have a 90% chance of winning $10,000, but it will cost $10,000 to bring suit. Under the current system, no lawsuit. Under "loser pays" it's not so clear. > While the legislators are wrangling over ways to make lawyers' lives > miserable they're not bothering the rest of us, so that looks like a > double win to me. Except that "reasonable" is a determination of fact, not law, so it's determined in the courts, not the legislature. So if you're trying to reduce the number of lawsuits, it's a double loss. > This would, among other things, prevent rich folks from sueing poor > folks > into poverty, as Uri Gellar did in an attempt to silence James > Randi--Gellar filed several suits, lost all of them, but the cost of > Randi's defense bankrupted him. Gellar _was_ charged attorney's fees in the Prometheus lawsuit and ended up paying $120,000 to Randi. It didn't stop him. You're assuming the Gellar knew he was going to lose, which has never been demonstrated. Nor would the change necessarily help Randi. As you point out above, each side still has to pay their costs up front. Gellar could have still bankrupted Randi by spending during the litigation. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. Michael Benveniste skrev: > > Another relatively simple solution would be to make the court costs > > automatically end up on the looser. One of the big problems is the "if > > we don't win, you don't pay" approach that happens now. If a > > "plaintiff" can't sue without significant financial risk, they would > > think twice about going for deep pockets without a substantial case. > Simple it ain't. > Since in litigation, both sides inevitably overestimate their odds > of winning, a "loser pays" system would increase the marginal utility > of each dollar spent in the effort. Both sides would have a greater > incentive to spend more on the case, likely resulting in higher > litigation costs. This ingenious piece of pure theory is fortunately contradicted by all the available epirical evidence. It really is exactly that simple. Countries that have a "loser pays for both" system invariably have considerably lower costs for litigation than the US, not higher - also when corrected fo lawyer's fees per hour. My native Sweden is a beautiful case in point, where the litigation costs per capita per annum are more than an order of magnitude lower than the US costs. An intersting linguistic aside is that it is well-nigh impossible to translate "frivolous lawsuit" into Swedish. Since the loser invariably pays, there is no incentive for such, so we simply don't have them. > Nor does it help to limit recovery to "reasonable attorney's fees." > That just leads to further legislation over what's "reasonable." Well, would that be a problem? In Sweden, the court which decides the case, also decides whether a fee is reasonable or not. Having judged the case by its merits, it is surely the best placed body to determine wheter the fees are reasonable. Please note, though, that if the lawyers's fee is determined _not_ no be reasonable, it is he who gets less pay. The differentialcan't be passed on to the client. Nice, isn't it? > Since many lawsuits are to determine percentage of responsibility > and/or amount of damages rather than to determine who's the "winner," There is absolutely no contradiction between determining percentage of responsibility and determining a winner. A lawsuit is always about two conflicting points of view. The court might find that both points of view are unreasonable, and that an equitable solution is a compromise between the two viewpoints, sure. In such cases, the costs are shared in a "loser pays" system, either equally or according to some kind of proportions. But this only means that there is a greater incentive to argue reasonable viewpoints in tort cases in such countries than in the current US system. Would this really be a problem either? Jan B?hme >Michael Benveniste skrev: >This ingenious piece of pure theory is fortunately contradicted by all >the available epirical evidence. It really is exactly that simple. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >beautiful case in point, where the litigation costs per capita per >annum are more than an order of magnitude lower than the US costs. You're confusing correlation with causation. Japan does not have "loser pays" and has even lower litigation costs per capita than Sweden. >> Nor does it help to limit recovery to "reasonable attorney's fees." >> That just leads to further legislation over what's "reasonable." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the case by its merits, it is surely the best placed body to determine >wheter the fees are reasonable. This statement points out one of the many cultural differences between the countries. In the U.S., having a government official set prices for goods and services is viewed with something between deep suspicion and outright horror. I contend that it's these cultural differences account for the difference in amount of litigation. Those same cultural differences result in Sweden having just under twice the tax burden per capita as in the U.S. (Source: http://www.urban.org/publications/1000976.html) I don't deny that "loser pays" works elsewhere, nor do I claim that the U.S. legal system is "fairer" or "better" than others. But for "loser pays" to work in the United States would require a change in that culture and for that change to be reflected in a general overhaul in how we handle civil litigation. It's been tried. In 1994 the Republican party's "Contract with America" called for a loser pays system. Despite having a Republican majorities in the House and Senate, the bill got absolutely nowhere. (Source: http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/legalrefb.txt). >There is absolutely no contradiction between determining percentage of >responsibility and determining a winner. A lawsuit is always about two [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in a "loser pays" system, either equally or according to some kind of >proportions. In most U.S. jurisdictions, it's possible to sue for unspecified damages. In all U.S. jurisdictions, settlement offers are inadmissible as evidence as evidence for the amount of damages. When a jury returns a money verdict, the legal system presumes that the amount is "reasonable." Does that make any other amount unreasonable? In short, I'll stand by my claim. "Loser pays" may be simplistic, but it ain't simple. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. Michael Benveniste skrev: > >Countries that have a "loser pays for both" system invariably have > >considerably lower costs for litigation than the US, not higher - also [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "loser pays" and has even lower litigation costs per capita than > Sweden. I have never contended that the presence of a "loser pays" clause can explain all differences in litigation costs between different countries. But I maintain that the empirical evidence strongly favours the hypothesis that it reduces litigation costs, everthing else being equal. > In Sweden, the court which decides the > >case, also decides whether a fee is reasonable or not. Having judged [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > set prices for goods and services is viewed with something between > deep suspicion and outright horror. It doesn't work out exactly like that in the Swedish system, but never mind. > I contend that it's these cultural differences account for the > difference in amount of litigation. I won't deny that there are vast cultural differences between the attitude to litigation in different countries. But such cultural differences are largely nurtured and fostered precisely by the way the judicial system works. There are, of course, several other factors than "loser pays" within the legal system that drives the cultural attitudes towards litigation in the US. The peculiar US intermediary between damages and fines which is called "punitive damages" is another one which is patently obvious to an outsider. The US practice of leaving to the lay jury to determine, not only whether liabillity exists, but also the amount of damages, is a third. > I don't deny that "loser pays" works elsewhere, nor do I claim that the > U.S. legal system is "fairer" or "better" than others. But for "loser > pays" to work in the United States would require a change in that > culture and for that change to be reflected in a general overhaul in how > we handle civil litigation. My point is that cultural attitudes largely are shaped by what is locally possible, and that changes in the rules of the game thus drive changes in attitudes. The path might be a bit bumpy diring the transition, but the evolutionary success of H. sapiens is essentially about capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. This will be true also for US prospective litigants, I'm sure. You are most probably correct to state that there are many other possible changes that either would amplify and quicken the cultural change, or make the behavioural transition less bumpy. But every change will have its effect on behaviour. > It's been tried. In 1994 the Republican party's "Contract with America" > called for a loser pays system. The fact that it has been tried to establish a "loser pays" system, whch failed in the political process, shows that it is extremely politically difficult to establish such a system. However, this says nothing about how such a system would work in practice in the US if implemented on a test basis. Also very good ideas can be politically impossible. > >There is absolutely no contradiction between determining percentage of > >responsibility and determining a winner. A lawsuit is always about two [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In most U.S. jurisdictions, it's possible to sue for unspecified > damages. While I'm not certain that this is a very good thing - to my simplistic mind, damages are compensation for injury, and if you don't know what injury you have suffered, maybe you shouldn't sue in the first place - it certainly could be accomodated within a "loser pays" system If you sue for unspecified damages, and the defendant claims he is not liable, and court finds that he is, the defendant has, by all accunts, lost the case, irrespective of the damages awarded. > When a jury returns a money verdict, the legal system presumes > that the amount is "reasonable." Does that make any other amount > unreasonable? Of course not. But this wouldn't mean that the noun "unreasonable" would be meaningless in this context. Rather, a claim is unreasonable a priori if it is pretty certain that the court will not award according to it. > In short, I'll stand by my claim. "Loser pays" may be simplistic, > but it ain't simple. It ain't the whole path, but it is several strides along it. Jan Böhme >Michael Benveniste skrev: >This ingenious piece of pure theory is fortunately contradicted by all >the available epirical evidence. It really is exactly that simple. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >argue reasonable viewpoints in tort cases in such countries than in the >current US system. I think a blind "loser pays" system - like all one-size-fits-all bureaucratic solutions - is a horrendous solution that does considerable harm as well. A loser pays system merely says that, if the plaintiff loses he/she pays even if they had just cause for filing the suit. There are many reasons for losing a suit that do not always hinge on whether there is actual harm done by the defendent. On the other side, what you may actually end up with is that the courts (ie., juries) could just begin *always* awarding to the plaintiff, so that they don't have to pay the court costs of the large corporation who can afford better lawyers. There are other possibilities as well, most of which would actually hurt our overall access to the justice system to resolve differences. Imho, what is really needed, is pre-cause review board which attempts to determine whether there is a real, factual basis on which the complaint can go forward. Also, maybe awards for pain and suffering should not go to the plaintiffs (and their lawyers), but to some other organization(s) which could use the money to help people. Knowing you will not get that money would discourage lots of plaintiffs, as well as discourage lots of lawyers from taking incredible cases. "Anthony" <sadiztik07@yahoo.com> wrote in message > The last I heard, it is the clients who sue, not the lawyers. Lawyers > do not sue because they enjoy it. They sue because some idiot hired > them to sue someone else. If americans were not so litigious the number > of lawyers would shrink dramatically. Nonsense. Try using that logic to absolve hitmen from prosecution, because they were "hired" to kill someone. The legal profession is a willing partner in this wealth redistribution scheme. They coax huge settlements from juries, in order to "send a message" to defendants, and they end up pocketing a significant share of the proceeds. Sometimes, it is the best justice that money can buy. > "Anthony" <sadiztik07@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Try using that logic to absolve hitmen from prosecution, because they were > "hired" to kill someone. Except that hitmen don't get hauled before the ethics board if they refuse to take a case. > The legal profession is a willing partner in this wealth redistribution > scheme. They coax huge settlements from juries, Huh? If there's a settlement then the jury never gets involved. Settlements are in lieu of trial, not as a result of. > in order to "send a > message" to defendants, and they end up pocketing a significant share of > the proceeds. > > Sometimes, it is the best justice that money can buy. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Except that hitmen don't get hauled before the ethics board if they > refuse to take a case. > > Huh? If there's a settlement then the jury never gets involved. > Settlements are in lieu of trial, not as a result of. Let's not split hairs on this--I was merely saying that the legal profession has morphed into a force for intimidation and, in some cases, has become Jesse James without the gun. Ambulance chasers are an example of the worst in the legal profession. And I sat on a jury for a full week, in a civil liability case, only to learn that the attorneys for both sides had reached a settlement and that the jury's presence was no longer required. The mere threat of protracted jury trials often results in defendants caving-in, rather than bear the expenses of defending suits that have little merit. The average Joe used to be able to live virtually his entire life without having to become involved with courts. Now that has changed. I am not so sure that it is always for the good. That was my only point. > The last I heard, it is the clients who sue, not the lawyers. Lawyers > do not sue because they enjoy it. They sue because some idiot hired > them to sue someone else. If americans were not so litigious the number > of lawyers would shrink dramatically. While lawyers sue on behalf of clients, the U.S. system permits contingent fee arrangements, giving attorneys a direct and significant financial interest in the outcome of the case. In effect, they are suing on their own behalf as well as their clients'. This is not the forum to debate the costs and benefits of such a contingent fee system, nor does it appear to be germane here. This is a lawsuit brought by competing businesses, who claim to be willing to settle without financial compensation. Here's a direct link to the complaint: http://www.star-instruments.com/images/06CIV7825AmendedNov2.pdf SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >Here's a direct link to the complaint: >http://www.star-instruments.com/images/06CIV7825AmendedNov2.pdf Thanks for that, Michael. The fascinating thing there is that the plaintiffs, in addition to invoking the Lanham Acrt to protect their trademark, they are also suing under RICO, a law originally passed to combat organized crime. Talk about unintended consequences! Cheers, DuncanC > > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > them to sue someone else. If americans were not so litigious the number > of lawyers would shrink dramatically. Please. See the ads on local American tv stations from the slimy ambulance chasers? They post things like, "If you used the drug xxx, contact the law offices of Ken H. Smith immediately! You may be entitled to a cash settlement!" Scum. >> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > them to sue someone else. If americans were not so litigious the number > of lawyers would shrink dramatically. Lawyers are cold-calling people, trying to get them to sue someone just so the lawyer can get a ton of money (most tort cases end with the lawyers taking away 60-80% of the proceeds, sometimes more). > If americans were not so litigious the number > of lawyers would shrink dramatically. First a suit is not lightly entered, unless the lawyer is hired on contingency the retainer is perhaps $50,000 up front and no guarantee. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I read somewhere that the legal profession is THE Most Hated Profession in > America. It has its share of whores. Aren't Lawyers the larval form of Politicians? >> I read somewhere that the legal profession is THE Most Hated Profession >> in America. It has its share of whores. > Aren't Lawyers the larval form of Politicians? the second most hated form of life... Just like people dislike maggots more than they dislike flies :) >I read somewhere that the legal profession is THE Most Hated Profession in >America. One of my favorite quotes comes from Barbara Tuchman's "A Distant Mirror." I can't find my copy right now, but it goes something like this: "Taxes are too high. Doctors charge too much. And there are way too many lawyers." It was written in AD 1310. Cheers, DuncanC > These morons are mad because they sell very EXPENSIVE RC design > telescopes. But they have no more right to claim any kind of ownership > (and hence the ability to sue) than someone has for suiing over > ownership over the law of gravity. The RC telescope was invented in > 1910, about 80 years before this company even existed. You haven't, or can't, read properly. Either that or you see nothing wrong with Sigma claiming that all their lenses contain L glass, or NIkon claiming that the D70 has is a 61 Mpixel camera. SignatureAlan LeHun >> These morons are mad because they sell very EXPENSIVE RC design >> telescopes. But they have no more right to claim any kind of ownership [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wrong with Sigma claiming that all their lenses contain L glass, or > NIkon claiming that the D70 has is a 61 Mpixel camera. Not analogous, it's more Sigma claiming that all their lenses contain "AL" glass. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > Not analogous, it's more Sigma claiming that all their lenses contain "AL" > glass. No, it's not. Canon at least invented and use the "L glass" stuff. RCOS did not invent the Ritchey-Chretien design, or give it the name: it's been widely known to practitioners of the art for almost a century. In a sane world, the suit has no merit. If I started selling telescopes derived from a Maksutov called an "Advanced Maksutov" design, for about 1/5th the price of a normal Maksutov telescope that demonstrably produced images virtually indistinguishable from a "real" Maksutov, could (say) Questar start threatening me with financial violence re: "misleading the market"? Or would it be more reasonable to say to Questar to streamline their processes, invent a new design, etc, and generally compete within the market instead of crying to daddy? It turns out that in this case the usually kooky RichA is quite correct: the purpose is not protecting the public, or saving the world from the evil people at Meade, but simply the fact that since Meade's RCX scopes went on the market, RCOS's sales probably dropped. Sharply. Maybe even fatally. > In a sane world, the suit has no merit. If I started selling > telescopes derived from a Maksutov called an "Advanced Maksutov" > design, for about 1/5th the price of a normal Maksutov telescope that > demonstrably produced images virtually indistinguishable from a "real" > Maksutov, could (say) Questar start threatening me with financial > violence re: "misleading the market"? They wouldn't. However, if you knocked a couple of cheap lenses together and sold them _claiming_ that it was of an "advanced Maksutov" design, they would. Why aren't people reading this properly? The case against Meade is that they are selling cheap rubbishy telescopes that are NOT of a =3FRitchey- Chretien=3F design whilst telling their (potential) customers that they ARE of a =3FRitchey-Chretien=3F design. SignatureAlan LeHun > > In a sane world, the suit has no merit. If I started selling > > telescopes derived from a Maksutov called an "Advanced Maksutov" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and sold them _claiming_ that it was of an "advanced Maksutov" design, > they would. But that isn't what is happening, is it? > Why aren't people reading this properly? The case against Meade is that > they are selling cheap rubbishy telescopes that are NOT of a =3FRitchey- > Chretien=3F design whilst telling their (potential) customers that they > ARE of a =3FRitchey-Chretien=3F design. Since you must have read and understood http://www.meade.com/rcx400/ I can only conclude you are a simple liar. > > They wouldn't. However, if you knocked a couple of cheap lenses together > > and sold them _claiming_ that it was of an "advanced Maksutov" design, > > they would. > > But that isn't what is happening, is it? <sigh> We won't know that until the case has been heard and rulings made, will we? > > Why aren't people reading this properly? The case against Meade is that > > they are selling cheap rubbishy telescopes that are NOT of a =3FRitchey- > > Chretien=3F design whilst telling their (potential) customers that they > > ARE of a =3FRitchey-Chretien=3F design. > > Since you must have read and understood You are in error... > http://www.meade.com/rcx400/ ...but thanks for the link. Wether the Meade scope is or is not a Ritchey-Chretien design is, at this point in time, immaterial. The case that is being taken against them is that it is not. It will be up to the courts to decide wether Meade are entitled to call their design a "Ritchey-Chretien" one. Maybe the courts will rule in their favour. Maybe they won't. It is irrelevant to my point. > I can only conclude you are a simple liar. In doing so, you have demonstrated your inability to read between the lines and the resultant inaccuracy of your conclusions. The OP claimed that the case being brought was a case of ownership of the "Ritchey- Chretien" trademark. It is not, it is a case of False Advertising. SignatureAlan LeHun > > > They wouldn't. However, if you knocked a couple of cheap lenses together > > > and sold them _claiming_ that it was of an "advanced Maksutov" design, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > <sigh> We won't know that until the case has been heard and rulings > made, will we? Actually, we know this right now. You are free to google up reviews of the equipment. You can even read the Sky&Telescope review as well. Note that because _you_ or even RCOS is ignorant doesn't mean any claim has merit. > Wether the Meade scope is or is not a Ritchey-Chretien design is, at > this point in time, immaterial. HA HA HA. The shithead can't even shift his goalposts properly: if the design is not material, then on what basis is the suit again? Right: that the design is material. And it turns out the design is a modified RC. > The case that is being taken against > them is that it is not. It will be up to the courts to decide wether > Meade are entitled to call their design a "Ritchey-Chretien" one. Yet they aren't calling it that at all, are they? You say you read the Meade material and still utter this bullshit? That now makes you a liar^2; how big an exponent can you get? > Maybe the courts will rule in their favour. Maybe they won't. It is > irrelevant to my point. You are irrelevant. > > I can only conclude you are a simple liar. > > In doing so, you have demonstrated your inability to read between the > lines and the resultant inaccuracy of your conclusions. Why do I need to read between your lines, when the very lines you write are explicit, trivially demonstrable, incontroverible, lies? I can't believe that you are as stupid as you are making out. This will be my last post in response to you. > > > > They wouldn't. However, if you knocked a couple of cheap lenses together > > > > and sold them _claiming_ that it was of an "advanced Maksutov" design, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Note that because _you_ or even RCOS is ignorant doesn't mean any claim > has merit. Ok, ok. You the omniesscent know this right now. I would take your word for it, but unfortunately there are a number of plaintiffs who claim otherwise, and they are staking large sums of money on being right. What I want to know is what makes you think that I believe the claim has merit? Wether they win or not, I don't care. I have never cared about the validity of their claim. I have never said I did. What on earth makes you think that /I/ am making these claims? Where did I say that? Can you read? > > Wether the Meade scope is or is not a Ritchey-Chretien design is, at > > this point in time, immaterial. > > HA HA HA. The shithead can't even shift his goalposts properly: if > the design is not material, then on what basis is the suit again? Here is my point. I shall state it nice and simple so you can understand it. "Meade are being taken to court for False Advertising, and NOT for breach of trademark." In what way is the validity of the claim material to that point? > Right: that the design is material. And it turns out the design is a > modified RC. Tell the judge. I don't care. I am not in the slightest bit interested in the validity of the claim or the origins of the Meade design. My only interest is the nature of the claim which is for False Advertising. It is real. It exists. It is Azari et al. V. B&H PHoto=Video.com Corp, No 06 CIV 7825. > > The case that is being taken against > > them is that it is not. It will be up to the courts to decide wether > > Meade are entitled to call their design a "Ritchey-Chretien" one. > > Yet they aren't calling it that at all, are they? You say you read the > Meade material and still utter this bullshit? Jesus wept. What has the Meade material got to do with it? The claim has been filed. It exists. It is for False Advertising. The Judge /WILL/ rule on the valdity of the claim and I'm sure (s)he'll look at a damn site more than just the Meade material, which, in case you still fail to understand, is pretty much the subject of the case. The plaintif's claim that it is in error, misleading, false, lies. NOTE. I do not claim that. It's the plaintif's that are claiming that. In the case that has been filed. The one that exists. It has nothing to do with me. I don't care about the Meade design. I never have. > That now makes you a > liar^2; how big an exponent can you get? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You are irrelevant. Yes. Pretty much so. Why you are giving me so much relevance is flattering but misplaced. I am not making any claims about Meade or their designs. You are. You think I care. > > > I can only conclude you are a simple liar. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why do I need to read between your lines, when the very lines you write > are explicit, trivially demonstrable, incontroverible, lies? <sigh> I have not lied. I may, when referencing the details of the case, be wrong through ignorance, but I have not lied. Please stop attributing claims made by others to me. SignatureAlan LeHun Alan LeHun blathers: > I can't believe that you are as stupid as you are making out. This will > be my last post in response to you. That's fine: I love getting the last word. > I shall state it nice and simple so you can understand it. > > "Meade are being taken to court for False Advertising, and NOT for > breach of trademark." > > In what way is the validity of the claim material to that point? Because, fuckhead, you can't answer the question without first ascertaining Meade's design. That is to say, the design is material to the point. Of course, you explicitly (and stupidly) said otherwise. Dumb or dumber? Liar seems more resonable, since you only begin these "I'm just the messenger" and "Let the judge decide" disingenuities _after_ the trivially obtained evidence that shows RCOS's position is utterly without merit is placed before your eyes. Do you have to call some bureaucrat every day to make sure gravity is still working, or what? > I can't believe that you are as stupid as you are making out. This will > be my last post in response to you. [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > -- > Alan LeHun For those in the photographic community unaware of why this kind of opinion rears its head, you have to understand about the cabal of Meade haters out there who pounce on anything Meade does as some kind of blasphemy. Most of them are irrational, some owning scopes costing FAR more than affordable Meades (and Meade INVENTED affordable amateur astronomy) that can't compete against the Meades when it comes to actually observing or imaging through them. So Meade decides to release a modified form of an old design and it happens to cost several times less than another scope...ATTACK!!! No one is stopping these people from helping RCOS out and BUYING A SCOPE! Let you dollars do the talking, crybabies. > For those in the photographic community unaware of why this kind of > opinion rears its head, I have not stated any opinion, other than that your OP suggesting that the case was about ownership was in error. > you have to understand about the cabal of Meade > haters out there who pounce on anything Meade does as some kind of > blasphemy. Thank you for the information. > Most of them are irrational, some owning scopes costing FAR > more than affordable Meades (and Meade INVENTED affordable amateur [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of an old design and it happens to cost several times less than another > scope...ATTACK!!! I do not own any sort of astronomical scope and don't do any sort of astronomy other than with the naked eye. I was, before this thread, vaguely aware of a company called Meade but not RC optical systems. I am now beginning to realise why all my posts in this thread have been jumped upon by people who haven't bothered to read them properly. They are obviously a contra to the Meade haters Cabal. Call them the Meade can do no wrong cabal. I'll leave them to it. SignatureAlan LeHun >> In a sane world, the suit has no merit. If I started selling >> telescopes derived from a Maksutov called an "Advanced Maksutov" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Chretien=3F design whilst telling their (potential) customers that they > ARE of a =3FRitchey-Chretien=3F design. First, would you care to demonstrate that they are "rubbishy"? Second, Mead is not claiming that they are Ritchie Chretien, they are claiming that they are of an optical design developed by Meade that is derived from the Ritchie Chretien design that they are calling an "Advanced Ritchie Chretien"? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > Why aren't people reading this properly? The case against Meade is that > > they are selling cheap rubbishy telescopes that are NOT of a =3FRitchey- > > Chretien=3F design whilst telling their (potential) customers that they > > ARE of a =3FRitchey-Chretien=3F design. > > First, would you care to demonstrate that they are "rubbishy"? No. I do not need to as I am not making that claim. That is the claim of the case that is being brought against Meade of which I have played no part. > Second, Mead is not claiming that they are Ritchie Chretien, they are > claiming that they are of an optical design developed by Meade that is > derived from the Ritchie Chretien design that they are calling an > "Advanced Ritchie Chretien"? That may or may not be. The fact remains that the case being brought against them is that it is not a Ritchie Chretien design, derived or otherwise. It has nothing to do with some people claiming rights over Ritchie Chretian design or trademark which is what most people on this thread are assuming. Presumably because that's how the OP erroneously reported it. SignatureAlan LeHun > > > Why aren't people reading this properly? The case against Meade is that > > > they are selling cheap rubbishy telescopes that are NOT of a =3FRitchey- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the case that is being brought against Meade of which I have played no > part. As expected, you are a liar^3 now: http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/images/RC_vs_Meade.pdf RCOS's argument is that some of the sales people at these companies were misrepresenting their wares, not that it is "rubbishy" (at least I can't find any reference to such). I personally found it most hilarious when the complaint goes on about how people aren't buying the super-expensive RCOS gear anymore. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that RCOS can't figure out how to piggy-back on Meade's patents in this case (Meade, at this point in its life, is probably well represented re: patent issues), so decided to try and bamboozle some ignorant salesdroids and try to make a federal case out of it. RICO, no less. >> > Why aren't people reading this properly? The case against Meade is that >> > they are selling cheap rubbishy telescopes that are NOT of a =3FRitchey- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the case that is being brought against Meade of which I have played no > part. Is it? Care to provide a quote to support that? >> Second, Mead is not claiming that they are Ritchie Chretien, they are >> claiming that they are of an optical design developed by Meade that is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thread are assuming. Presumably because that's how the OP erroneously > reported it. And Meade's defense is almost certainly going to be that they never said that it was a Ritchie Chretien and that "Advanced Ritchie Chretien" is a different design. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > That is the claim of > > the case that is being brought against Meade of which I have played no > > part. > > Is it? Care to provide a quote to support that? Yes ok. I exaggerated for the point of illustration. > And Meade's defense is almost certainly going to be that they never > said that it was a Ritchie Chretien and that "Advanced Ritchie Chretien" > is a different design. Indeed, and It doesn't look too difficult to show that the design path does follow on from the classic design. I've found a link to the actual filing. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:zpV6AwgdCTUJ:www.star- instruments.com/images/06CIV7825AmendedNov2.pdf+Russell+K. +Statman&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=4 http://tinyurl.com/vu9ke http://preview.tinyurl.com/vu9ke It seems the claim is for 75,000,000usd, but the pertinent stuff starts at paragraph 46. SignatureAlan LeHun >> > That is the claim of >> > the case that is being brought against Meade of which I have played no [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > It seems the claim is for 75,000,000usd, but the pertinent stuff starts > at paragraph 46. The lawyer better be careful--he used the letter "R" in his email address--next thing you know they're going to be going after _him_ <grin>. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > And Meade's defense is almost certainly going to be that they never > said that it was a Ritchie Chretien and that "Advanced Ritchie Chretien" > is a different design. This is what gets my goat. If it's a different design then why are Meade including Ritchie Chretien in the name? Why not "Advanced Meade Blahblahblah"? Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >> And Meade's defense is almost certainly going to be that they never >> said that it was a Ritchie Chretien and that "Advanced Ritchie Chretien" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why not "Advanced Meade Blahblahblah"? Because they started with the Ritchie-Chretien design and then did things to it? > Greg Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> And Meade's defense is almost certainly going to be that they never >>> said that it was a Ritchie Chretien and that "Advanced Ritchie Chretien" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Because they started with the Ritchie-Chretien design and then did things > to it? Well, is it different or is it an enhancement? From the minimal reading I've done I take it that it's a clear enhancement rather than something entirely different. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons >>>> And Meade's defense is almost certainly going to be that they never >>>> said that it was a Ritchie Chretien and that "Advanced Ritchie Chretien" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I've done I take it that it's a clear enhancement rather than something > entirely different. They describe the design on their site--apparently they've made a three element design that provides most of the advantages of the Ritchie Chretien but is much less expensive to build. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >>>> And Meade's defense is almost certainly going to be that they never > >>>> said that it was a Ritchie Chretien and that "Advanced Ritchie Chretien" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > element design that provides most of the advantages of the Ritchie > Chretien but is much less expensive to build. The aspheric curves on the RC optics are hard to make, compared to the optics of the SCT. When it was created, the SC (it was a camera to start with) was difficult to fabricate as it required making a complex aspherical lens (corrector) using exotic shaped polishing laps. Celestron Pacific (now Celestron, owned by Chinese Synta corp) perfected a method of vaccuum holding a thin glass plate, polishing it flat and releasing the vaccuum, thereby creating the formerly complex aspherical shape. Meade also uses a similar system. This allowed the creation of inexpensive ($1500 in 1968) mass-market complex and portable telescopes. The two mirrors in the system are nominally spherical (cheap to make) with final system null-figuring done on the smaller secondary mirror. The RC has two aspherical mirrors that can't be made inexpensively. The SC design has also allowed construction of hyper-fast camera lenses such as 200mm f0.5 where the film was actually inside the lens. They could do this with CCD sensors too and "live lcds" would make it practical as a shooting system. Today, you can buy a 8" (200mm optic diameter, 2000mm focal length) SCT that costs about $1100 that can be made to operate as camera lens with a focal length of 1250mm f6.3 with a $150 corrector lens. >> >>>> And Meade's defense is almost certainly going to be that they never >> >>>> said that it was a Ritchie Chretien and that "Advanced Ritchie Chretien" [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > a focal length of > 1250mm f6.3 with a $150 corrector lens. Your point being? Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > The aspheric curves on the RC optics are hard to make, compared to the > optics of the SCT. When it was created, the SC (it was a camera to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > flat and releasing the vaccuum, thereby creating the formerly complex > aspherical shape. Um, no. Schmidt himself invented this fabrication technique. > > Not analogous, it's more Sigma claiming that all their lenses contain "AL" > > glass. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > etc, and generally compete within the market instead of crying to > daddy? It's already happened when the Meade ETX when it hit the market. Questar never bothered raising a fuss, because they occupied a different stratum. However RCOS should worry about about the Italian company selling real RC's now too! There are also scopes out there calling themselves Maks with sub-diameter correctors. RCOS hasn't a leg to stand on, unless they get an ignorant judge. >You haven't, or can't, read properly. Either that or you see nothing >wrong with Sigma claiming that all their lenses contain L glass I'm not sure the term "L glass" has any meaning. The term "Ritchey-Chretien" is claimed to designate a specific design. If Canon's L-series lenses have any one technology in common it's the use of fluorite elements, which aren't glass at all. As for the actual glass, nothing I know of stops Sigma from buying its exotic glass from Ohara, just like Canon does. Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and others already do just that. http://www.ohara-inc.co.jp/en/company/overview.html SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > >You haven't, or can't, read properly. Either that or you see nothing > >wrong with Sigma claiming that all their lenses contain L glass [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email > address only to submit mail for evaluation. I thought Canon owned Optron and I thought they made their own fluorite? Monocrystaline calcium-fluorite is still the best low-dispersion material for correcting chromatic aberrations, but the fluorite-glass hybrid (FPL-53) is pretty close, cheaper and far easier to work with. >I thought Canon owned Optron and I thought they made their own >fluorite? Correct. In fact, they changed the name of the company to Canon-Optron a couple of years ago. But fluorite isn't a glass. Trying to untangle Japanese cross-ownership agreements is beyond my ability, but I don't think Canon manufactures any optical glass per se. >Monocrystaline calcium-fluorite is still the best low-dispersion >material for correcting chromatic aberrations, but the fluorite-glass >hybrid (FPL-53) is pretty close, cheaper and far easier to work with. Agreed. S-FPL53 is the O'hara designation for the stuff: http://www.ohara-gmbh.com/e/katalog/d_s-fpl53_e.html While their's a similar Russian product called OK-4, I don't think Hoya, Schott, or Corning offer it. Based on the customer list, I'm guessing that Nikon's "Super ED" and Canon's Super UD glass are rebadged S-FPL53. Fluorite has a refractive index of 1.433 and an Abbe Number of 95.0. S-FPL53 has a refractive index of 1.439 and an Abbe Number of 94.93. Pretty close indeed. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.