From: B. J. Arnold-Feret (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jun 04 2002 - 18:32:18 EEST
I love it - calling it monopolistic practices instead of other names.
But, is this kind of like telling the rancher that the barn door is open
after all the horses are out? If you want 3D Systems to engage in a
different type of trade practice, should the RP community tell them and the
Justice department how to fix it so that customers have a better business
position and 3D Systems makes less money off of us? <grin>
Proving restraint of trade issues, anti-competitive, or anti-trust stance in
court is a long, hard, and tedious road to travel. Cases of this type take
place, yet it is difficult to prove and requires lots of money and time on
the part of a customer trying to change a firm's business practices. (Think
Microsoft...) One lawyer told me regarding a very clear cut case that it
would be three years minimum, at least $50,000 to start, and winning or
losing was a matter of endurance rather than right or wrong. In the
meantime, the business affected by the vendor engaged in anti-competitive
activity would be gone.
So, that being said, sign me up for the windmill charging brigade!
B. J. Arnold-Feret
From: ChathamRes@aol.com <ChathamRes@aol.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Monopolistic Practices in the Rapid Protoytping Business
>We are performing a study for a client company in the area of monopolistic
practices within the rapid prototyping business.
>If you have experienced the results of monopolistic practices within this
field, we would like to hear from you.
>Please send your replies to Chatham Research.
>REL Chatham Research
>For more information about the rp-ml, see http://rapid.lpt.fi/rp-ml/
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://rapid.lpt.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 20:13:51 EET