-
Vizio SLAPPED with multiple lawsuits
Pixie, you betta take your take your vizio and run fer the hills, Sony, Samsung, Mitsubishi are coming fer ya.
Seems that Vizio can rake in the money, but they do not like to pay liscensing fee's. Apex, and Cyberhome are not around for these very reasons
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Ec&refer=japan
-
Uht oh. I predict that this will not end well.
-
Jim Noyd best hope not to land in jail...in China.
-
Wow! That's a drag! :lol:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Pixie, you betta take your take your vizio and run fer the hills, Sony, Samsung, Mitsubishi are coming fer ya.
Seems that Vizio can rake in the money, but they do not like to pay liscensing fee's. Apex, and Electrohome are not around for these very reason.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Ec&refer=japan
This is not as black & white as the Bloomberg article would have you believe.
Of course, Bloomberg is big business anyway.
The fine print : http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20080605PD210.html
The company said Vizio's suppliers have licenses for the MPEG-2 patents, and Vizio believes that these licenses extend to Vizio's products.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by techjunkie
This is not as black & white as the Bloomberg article would have you believe.
Of course, Bloomberg is big business anyway.
The fine print : http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20080605PD210.html
The company said Vizio's suppliers have licenses for the MPEG-2 patents, and Vizio believes that these licenses extend to Vizio's products.
The suppliers may have the liscenses, but those liscenses do not cover Vizio products in particular. This is an attempt to create a loophole that exempts Vizio from paying fees owed. If the liscenses cover manufacture of a particular piece(in this case a MPEG-2 decoder), it may not cover its implementation within the television itself. Since we do not know the particulars of the suit, its hard to say what covers what. But I know one thing, those big guys are not going to sue if they do not have a cause. And the fact that so many of them are joining in, means they have some cause, and a belief they will win.
Besides all of that, my corps is better than your corps! LOL
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
Jim Noyd best hope not to land in jail...in China.
Yeah, he'll never get past the first dinner. They have these neat little chemical additives they like to season their food with. It a real killer!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
But I know one thing, those big guys are not going to sue if they do not have a cause.
Sure they would. By suing they are creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the minds of potential Vizio buyers. These companies claims may be baseless, and they may in fact just be gambling that the FUD will cause potential Vizio customers to buy their products instead. These additional sales could likely pay for the lawsuit, and in the meantime they will have gained marketshare, and potentially even put a competitor out of business.
I am not saying that Vizio is blameless here, there is no way I could know. However, the decision to sue can have other motivations beyond simple justice.
Rob
-
well all is not lost,maybe they can borrow back some of the endorsement money from LT to foot the legal bill.....: )
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by rroobbcc
Sure they would. By suing they are creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the minds of potential Vizio buyers. These companies claims may be baseless, and they may in fact just be gambling that the FUD will cause potential Vizio customers to buy their products instead. These additional sales could likely pay for the lawsuit, and in the meantime they will have gained marketshare, and potentially even put a competitor out of business.
I am not saying that Vizio is blameless here, there is no way I could know. However, the decision to sue can have other motivations beyond simple justice.
Rob
Welcome to AR,
So you think that all of these manufatureres decided to call each other and put this plan into action together?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMichael
Welcome to AR,
So you think that all of these manufatureres decided to call each other and put this plan into action together?
...or possibly just a conversation on the putting green.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
...or possibly just a conversation on the putting green.
What? They went without me again? Those SOB's!
-
I think this lawsuit is based on the same one that was levied against Apex and Cyberhome for the same liscensing issues, and they won. That is why they are piling on this one. Apex's argument was their suppliers had paid THEIR liscensing fee's, so that covered Apex's butt. However the liscensing fee's were not designed to be transfereable, and Apex had to pay back liscensing fee's which drove them out of business. They apparently see this as the same infraction, and they are now coming down hard on Vizio.
I think this all stems from the fact that liscensing fee's were not policed well on DVD players, and the Chinese ran amok flooding the market with cheap DVD players they did not pay liscensing fee's on, which made the player alot cheaper, and eventually drove the major's out of the business.
-
VIZIO IS DEAD! :biggrin5:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
VIZIO IS DEAD! :biggrin5:
That's what they get for building nuclear powered TV's that will leak radioactive gasses and make the public grow 3 eyes.
-
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
And four tits! :eek:
Four? One for each hand, one for the mouth, and one in the back for dancing?
-
Roughly, what type of licensing fees could we be talking about on a per set basis?
Pennies, dollars, tens of dollars, more?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by rroobbcc
Sure they would. By suing they are creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the minds of potential Vizio buyers. These companies claims may be baseless, and they may in fact just be gambling that the FUD will cause potential Vizio customers to buy their products instead. These additional sales could likely pay for the lawsuit, and in the meantime they will have gained marketshare, and potentially even put a competitor out of business.
I am not saying that Vizio is blameless here, there is no way I could know. However, the decision to sue can have other motivations beyond simple justice.
Rob
I agree with you, and not sir talky, who as usual doesnt have a clue.
SUING is a matter of doing business, and vizio has caused some ill will.
ITS KINDA HARD to sell a 42in lcd set for two grand plus when a vizio can be had for a grand, sometimes with a better picture.
Whenever a manufacturer offers a decent product at a decent price, those who would want to trade on their "name", who think their product should cost two prices because
of the name on it rush to the attack.
NOT that I care, I have a nice set with DVDO scaling and a zero bright pixel guarentee,
and I love it, it looks great.
This sort of thing has been going on forever, using govt force to quell a competetor
when you cant compete.
PRETTY MUCH LIKE WHAT HAPPENED with Tucker motor,
or the way RCA tried to get FM radio outlawed when it first came out:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
VIZIO IS DEAD! :biggrin5:
nope.
THAT SMELL is your fly by nite amp going KABOOM, oh, about six months
from now.
NOT TO MENTION the projection bulb in that rube goldberg set of yours, which, like the set its in, has the lifespan of a fruitfly
Oh, and PLASMA TOO OF COURSE:1:
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
And four tits! :eek:
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH YOU?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
I agree with you, and not sir talky, who as usual doesnt have a clue.
SUING is a matter of doing business, and vizio has caused some ill will.
ITS KINDA HARD to sell a 42in lcd set for two grand plus when a vizio can be had for a grand, sometimes with a better picture.
Whenever a manufacturer offers a decent product at a decent price, those who would want to trade on their "name", who think their product should cost two prices because
of the name on it rush to the attack.
NOT that I care, I have a nice set with DVDO scaling and a zero bright pixel guarentee,
and I love it, it looks great.
This sort of thing has been going on forever, using govt force to quell a competetor
when you cant compete.
PRETTY MUCH LIKE WHAT HAPPENED with Tucker motor,
or the way RCA tried to get FM radio outlawed when it first came out:1:
If this was nothing more than big brother picking on little brother, then Apex and Cyberhome would still be here. This is a case of a company selling cheap underperforming televisions without the necessary liscenses, which by the way allow them to undercut the majors who pay their liscensing fees.
When it comes to PQ, Vizio is always at the bottom of the pile. Why, because vizio televsions lose 75% of their resolution when objects move. That is more loss than any CRT based televsion, and more than other brand of flat panels as well. They are at the top of list with flat panels with high light leakage(hence the low contrast ratio), and they cannot fully resolve 720p even with a DVDO(because the panel is the issue, not the processing). That is neither here nor there though, because the bottom line here is that it is clear they have not paid their liscensing fees, and using the same argument that Apex and Cyberhome used is not going to help them at all.
-
Well if Apex and Cyberhome lost on the same premise that explains the law suit in the first place. A widespread practice among large law firms is to bring what are called "cookie-cutter" lawsuits.
A law firm wins a large settlement in a complicated case. Other law firms take note and then look around for practical applications to sue another business using the winning argument/precedent set in the earlier case. It is cheaper for the law firm because much of the research has been done and their chance of winning is pretty high. The practice has become so common that some law firms have attempted to patent their winning arguements/cases so that they could continue to generate income.
My guess is that an outside law firm approached the plaintiffs and told them they could put together an relatively inexpensive lawsuit that could eliminate one of their competitors.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
If this was nothing more than big brother picking on little brother, then Apex and Cyberhome would still be here. This is a case of a company selling cheap underperforming televisions without the necessary liscenses, which by the way allow them to undercut the majors who pay their liscensing fees.
When it comes to PQ, Vizio is always at the bottom of the pile. Why, because vizio televsions lose 75% of their resolution when objects move. That is more loss than any CRT based televsion, and more than other brand of flat panels as well. They are at the top of list with flat panels with high light leakage(hence the low contrast ratio), and they cannot fully resolve 720p even with a DVDO(because the panel is the issue, not the processing). That is neither here nor there though, because the bottom line here is that it is clear they have not paid their liscensing fees, and using the same argument that Apex and Cyberhome used is not going to help them at all.
INTERLACE pixtures(1080i, 489i) lose res when theres movement, like your antique dinosaurs that you like to watch.
Progressive doesnt have that problem.
The PQ on my set is quite good, you think they would sell so many if the picture sucked?
Its no bargain to get a cheap set and a bad picture.
YOU'RE just taking point for your masters at Sony, who, while they make good sets,
have a hard time justifying their premium prices just because their name is on the front.
So the lawsuit.
Truth is that inexpensive Vizios are depressing market prices, grredheads like your sony masters cant charge what they would like, and the cant compete.
HENCE the lawsuit.
Its got about as much to do with "picture quality" as your hobbled together crappola:1:
-
AS for royalties they have been paid.
Former similar lawsuits were successfull for a reason, the plaintifs "laywered"
the defendants to death, paying out tons of money and finally outlasting them.
VIZIO, while a new name, is backed by older, more established companies.
They wont be such an easy victim to this nonsense.
Extrapolate the reasoning of the plaintiffs and you'd have to pay a royality
everytime you made a set, or WATCHED one.
But even if VIZIO sinks beneath the waves I dont care, I have a great set,
and it will certainly last till upgrade time (the two year mark).
I will bet its around long after your last CRT has fried and you cant find another , no matter how many dumpsters you "dive":1:
-
Vizio sells a lot of TVs to the inbreds who shop at Wally World and have no friggin idea how bad they really are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
INTERLACE pixtures(1080i, 489i) lose res when theres movement, like your antique dinosaurs that you like to watch.
Progressive doesnt have that problem.
The PQ on my set is quite good, you think they would sell so many if the picture sucked?
Its no bargain to get a cheap set and a bad picture.
YOU'RE just taking point for your masters at Sony, who, while they make good sets,
have a hard time justifying their premium prices just because their name is on the front.
So the lawsuit.
Truth is that inexpensive Vizios are depressing market prices, grredheads like your sony masters cant charge what they would like, and the cant compete.
HENCE the lawsuit.
Its got about as much to do with "picture quality" as your hobbled together crappola:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duds
Vizio sells a lot of TVs to the inbreds who shop at Wally World and have no friggin idea how bad they really are.
You pack so much good stuff into one sentence! Gawd I wish I could do that! :mad2:
-
If you had combined your two earlier posts into one post, you'd almost be there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
You pack so much good stuff into one sentence! Gawd I wish I could do that! :mad2:
-
Yeah but it would seem fragmented compared to yours. Your remark had a nice, even flow to it.
-
Yeah I've been told i should write for an AV magazine or website...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich-n-Texas
Yeah but it would seem fragmented compared to yours. Your remark had a nice, even flow to it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
INTERLACE pixtures(1080i, 489i) lose res when theres movement, like your antique dinosaurs that you like to watch.
Progressive doesnt have that problem.
You are lying pixie. All television whether they are progressive or interlaced lose resolution when objects move. ALL televsions. The question becomes how much. According to Panasonic digital testing lab, the Pioneer Kuros finished at the top of the heap, and the vizio at the bottom in every catagory and at all screen sizes. My dinosaur is a 1080p projector, not a 1080i. My television is a 1080p set, not 1080i. This is what I mean when I tell you that your information is lacking. Not all CRT's are 1080i, once you go high end, their resolution goes progressive OR interlaced. Remember, its not the television, its the processing. Any television can be made progressive CRT or digital. Its all in the processing. My projector loses 10% of its resolution during movement in its 1080p setting, and slightly(and I mean slightly) when handling interlaced images. My processor can knock that down to 5% with forward adapting motion compensation which my processor does very well(it uses four Cell processors) The visio 37" loses 75% percent of its resolution with moving objects. These are non debateable facts, tests bare this out.
Quote:
The PQ on my set is quite good, you think they would sell so many if the picture sucked?
Yes. They sold alot of Apex and Cyberhome DVD players because they were cheap. It didn't make any difference that not one of these DVD players could pass basic tests such as 3:2 pull down without a bunch of jaggies.
Quote:
Its no bargain to get a cheap set and a bad picture.
It is when you do not really care about PQ
Quote:
YOU'RE just taking point for your masters at Sony, who, while they make good sets,
have a hard time justifying their premium prices just because their name is on the front.
I don't work for Sony. I am not sure why you don't seem to be able to grasp this, but this is not about you. Sony can justify its prices because they score well on PQ and video tests, and they pay their liscenses. So its pretty clear where the R&D money is spent, and fully justifies their price tags. The fact that Sony is the most reliable name in consumer electronics doesn't hurt.
Quote:
So the lawsuit.
Truth is that inexpensive Vizios are depressing market prices, grredheads like your sony masters cant charge what they would like, and the cant compete.
HENCE the lawsuit.
Its got about as much to do with "picture quality" as your hobbled together crappola:1:
The Vizio are depressing the market because they are not paying their liscensing fee's, and passing those costs. They are depressing the market because they use cheap parts, and have basically no support infrastructure. They have no steady vendors, so you do not know when parts will change during manufacture Vizio doesn't even have a customer service department, it all falls on the retailer. What Vizio does is exactly the same thing that Apex and Cyberhome did, and that got them busted, and put out of business. Its cool if you come to the defense of the maker of your television, but doesn't mean a damn thing in the courts. Vizio is using the EXACT same defense as Cyberhome and Apex(our vendors paid the liscenses for us), and that is going to kill them in the courts.
-
Whattup Terrence
Quote:
Originally Posted by rroobbcc
Sure they would. By suing they are creating FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) in the minds of potential Vizio buyers. These companies claims may be baseless, and they may in fact just be gambling that the FUD will cause potential Vizio customers to buy their products instead. These additional sales could likely pay for the lawsuit, and in the meantime they will have gained marketshare, and potentially even put a competitor out of business.
I am not saying that Vizio is blameless here, there is no way I could know. However, the decision to sue can have other motivations beyond simple justice.
This post actually makes alot of sense, though I see your point and suspect that it may be the catalyst or the proverbial foot in the door. In any case, the big boys don't have much to lose other than the time for some lawdogs who are probably house clowns anyway.
What interests me is that this story is being reported out of Japan. "Based in California" is not really too informative...is Vizio a Japanese entity?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
This post actually makes alot of sense, though I see your point and suspect that it may be the catalyst or the proverbial foot in the door. In any case, the big boys don't have much to lose other than the time for some lawdogs who are probably house clowns anyway.
What interests me is that this story is being reported out of Japan. "Based in California" is not really too informative...is Vizio a Japanese entity?
Technically, Vizio's an American company, but none of their product is actually made in the U.S. Like Terrence said, they operate as a virtual company with no independent R&D, manufacturing, or customer service capacity -- it's all outsourced. They're a billion dollar company and for a while last year they were the #1 LCD TV brand, yet they have less than 100 employees. What does that tell you?
A lot of these fly-by-night companies came and went when the DVD format was in its growth phase, and the Chinese outsource manufacturers supplying them with DVD players were known for bypassing or shortchanging the license and patent holders. With flat panel TVs, it should be no surprise that this same kind of cheating could be going on with the off-brand models.
The "big boys" actually have a lot to lose by doing nothing, given that they developed and hold most of the rights to the MPEG-2 technologies that underpin HDTV broadcasting. If they're getting shortchanged, and someone's gaining market share by undercutting their costs through illegal practices, then it's almost their obligation to enforce these patents in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpeg_2#Patent_holders
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
stuff
Gracias
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duds
Yeah I've been told i should write for an AV magazine or website...
If you can find one that hires JR high school students.
I can see why rich admires you, you're even more clueless than HE is :1:
-
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
You are lying pixie. All television whether they are progressive or interlaced lose resolution when objects move. ALL televsions. The question becomes how much. According to Panasonic digital testing lab, the Pioneer Kuros finished at the top of the heap, and the vizio at the bottom in every catagory and at all screen sizes. My dinosaur is a 1080p projector, not a 1080i. My television is a 1080p set, not 1080i. This is what I mean when I tell you that your information is lacking. Not all CRT's are 1080i, once you go high end, their resolution goes progressive OR interlaced. Remember, its not the television, its the processing. Any television can be made progressive CRT or digital. Its all in the processing. My projector loses 10% of its resolution during movement in its 1080p setting, and slightly(and I mean slightly) when handling interlaced images. My processor can knock that down to 5% with forward adapting motion compensation which my processor does very well(it uses four Cell processors) The visio 37" loses 75% percent of its resolution with moving objects. These are non debateable facts, tests bare this out.
I know that not all CRT tubes are interlaced.
I also know that CRT progressive requires such a fine pitch on the phosper that teh light output is quite dim, pretty much like yourself.
I have been arguing with you for six months that a interlaced pic loses up to half its resolution when movement occures, and you have been denying it.
Now you say ALL sets lose res during movement, which isnt the case for progressive scan.
THATS progress of a sort.
The real hoot is that you are comparing your (probably imaginary) multibuck pile of obsolete CRT CRAP to my 1,000 LCD SET
Quote:
Yes. They sold alot of Apex and Cyberhome DVD players because they were cheap. It didn't make any difference that not one of these DVD players could pass basic tests such as 3:2 pull down without a bunch of jaggies.
If you have an argument against MY set then make it, you keep bringing up these two defunct makers , even tho they have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Vizio because that is all you can think of.
Why dont I bring up Muntz front projector tv when talking about your crap?
EVERYTIME I get into a shouting match with a ninnie such as yourself you mention Apex and cyberhome, even tho I have NEVER bought either.
Vizio is backed by several Tawainese companies , most of which make parts and components for much more expensive sets.
They have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Apex or Cyberhome, and if you cant
connect the two you need to SHUT UP about them, as they have NOTHING to do with
ANY of this
Quote:
It is when you do not really care about PQ
I care a great deal about PQ, and I dont nurse a massive, fragil ego like you do.
And I have a life
Quote:
I don't work for Sony. I am not sure why you don't seem to be able to grasp this, but this is not about you. Sony can justify its prices because they score well on PQ and video tests, and they pay their liscenses. So its pretty clear where the R&D money is spent, and fully justifies their price tags. The fact that Sony is the most reliable name in consumer electronics doesn't hurt.
I have had FIVE sonys, my next set will probably be Sony.
But Sony was twice the price of my Vizio when I bought it, and the pq wasnt twice as good.
The REAL reason for this lawsuit? Sony selling next to Vizio at walmart at a similar price,
which I saw during a recent trip there, and they HATE IT.
The free market sux for them I guess.
So hire a bunch of lawyers and do in the courts what we cant do in the market.
Lawyer em to death, wont be the first time.
As for you working for Sony, you have always denied this, and you have your nose
so far up sonys butt you can see tonsils.
YOU ARENT FOOLING ANYBODY
Quote:
The Vizio are depressing the market because they are not paying their liscensing fee's, and passing those costs. They are depressing the market because they use cheap parts, and have basically no support infrastructure. They have no steady vendors, so you do not know when parts will change during manufacture Vizio doesn't even have a customer service department, it all falls on the retailer. What Vizio does is exactly the same thing that Apex and Cyberhome did, and that got them busted, and put out of business. Its cool if you come to the defense of the maker of your television, but doesn't mean a damn thing in the courts. Vizio is using the EXACT same defense as Cyberhome and Apex(our vendors paid the liscenses for us), and that is going to kill them in the courts.
No "steady vendors"? They have been selling at SAMS, Walmart, for three years, and now sell at Circuit city and others, they are a new company, and are very stable for one.
Three years, how "stable" do you want?
Rich just bought an AMP that has NO vendors, that is their sales strategy, as a matter of fact.
As for "cheap" parts you call ME a liar?
hOW DO YOU KNOW? Ever break one open?
the "parts" are first rate, the scaler is DVDO, the panel came from one of the two panel makers that were around when it was made. ITS TWO YEARS OLD ALMOST
with nary a hiccup, and the pic is the most stable I have EVER had on a set.
That is why it constantly gets good reviews.
And that is why slandering liars such as yourself bring up a few fly by night makers of tv
sets, because its all you have, and you know good and well that neither one has ANYTHING ot do with this company.
We have other Vizio owners on this site, ask THEM how they like theirs..
You wanna spend a small fortune on a science project that is obsolete, fine, do that
and sit in your darkened cave and enjoy you half a picture, you will never know that
you paid thousands for what modern tech can deliver for a LOT less:1:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duds
Vizio sells a lot of TVs to the inbreds who shop at Wally World and have no friggin idea how bad they really are.
Sony SELLS AT "WALLYWORLD" nimrod, how about them?
Or phillips, or magnavox, etc.
You're probably envious, you probably cant afford to shop at wally world.
Or maybe the bus that runs by your trailer park doesnt go by there:1:
-
1 Attachment(s)
SO , just what IS this Company that the likes of sirtalky and other snobs like to slander?
Just what IS behind this huge sucess story?
Every since I GOT INTO THIS HOBBY I have heard the same thing about a company like VIZIO, their product is cheap so it cant be any good.
Also names like apex, and cyberhome are brought up, two chinese comapnies that
WERE cheap, this is called slander by association, even tho VIZIO has NEVER had ANYTHING to do with either company.
Vizio is a TWO BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY, comparing it to trash like apex is
like comparing Gwynth Paltrol to carmen electra.
Its a lean business model they adhere to, sure, but they do design their own products,
Back them up, and arent going anywhere
I am probably going to buy Sony the next time I buy, Samsung if I LIKE THEIR dlp,
but Vizio was a great product at a great price when I couldnt afford fancy.
And I have enjoyed my set immensely, it would be a shame if they were driven out of the market by a bunch of greedheads.
HERES the story of the one who runs things.
He used to run mag innovision, he is NOT a shyster.
read FOR YOURSELF
http://www.sbnonline.com/Local/Artic...g_picture.aspx
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
The fact that Sony is the most reliable name in consumer electronics doesn't hurt.
Hey Sir TT
If you look at history of Sony’s reliability track record, that statement might not hold true. They were one of biggest selling CRT TV company on market, but refused to give their (non XBR) television sets more than 3 month warranty. While Panasonic and Sharp always provided one year warranty on their TV.
Panasonic is probably better qualified as most reliable brand :)
-
I think Sir T meant to say they are "known" as the most reliable name in consumer electronics, actual reliability notwithstanding - to the average joe. I'd believe that statement - I know a ton of people who aren't a/v enthusiasts like the people here, and for them it's Sony and Bose. Brand name power.
As for Vizio - if they're breaking the rules they will pay dearly. If they're not they probably won't. I don't care either way. Every Vizio I've seen has looked horrible, even for the money, but a zillion people buy them and don't care about PQ. Personally, I'd like to a see a few low-ball companies keep the other companies' prices in check a bit.
In the computer/software industry a lot of frivolous lawsuits are tossed around to paralyze competitors, you don't see it as much in the consumer electronics industry, and when you do it's usually patents or copyright/trademark disputes. This is a licensing issue so it's probably pretty black and white, and likely to be a quick case unless there's more to it than we're reading.
Dunno why Pixie is taking it so personally and responding with negative attacks on the people here instead of sticking to the topic?
|