Re: Rules of Evidence (S&T January Editorial)

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 12:55:54 -0700, "canopus56"
<canopus56@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Although I am not wealthy and cannot afford to buy a Meade RCX, on
principle, I would be concerned that if any company in general felt that
they can be successful in making deceptive claims about the performance of
their high-end line of products that that kind of unfair business conduct
would "bleed" down into advertising about their low-end line of telescopes
that I can afford to buy.

Yes, but it isn't clear to me that any deceptive claims were made here.
There is no real precedent for how generic optical designs are named in
commerce, particularly when modified with adjectives like "enhanced".
Details of the actual optical performance were, in fact, made available,
and the RCX design appears to have better optical performance in many
respects than an equivalent sized RC. I also read the posted lawsuit,
and I simply don't see how anybody was harmed, either the public or
RCOS.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.