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

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:49:53 -0700, Shawn
<scurryfifewonniyne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No, but you could call it a Lexus ;-)
Seems stupid to me to blow huge amounts on a legal battle over a public
domain description. Ritchey-Chretien is hardly a brand name.

No, but it IS a specific optical design with well-defined parameters,
and those don't include a corrector plate or spherical mirror.

Also, how many buyers of $4000, or $40,000 scopes don't know exactly
what they're buying?

When I first heard about the RCX not quite being a Ritchey-Chretien,
I said, not quite a Ritchey-Chretien, then lets remove two 'e's and
a 'y'. That leaves us with "Rich Cretin".

Yes, there *are* people out there with lots of extra money to spend,
an interest in Astronomy, and not enough knowledge of optics to
understand the fine-print details.

Frivolous lawsuits against industry leaders doesn't seem like good
business to me. If I were a potential buyer of such a pricey scope
(HA!), I would question the business sense of the company, and their
ability to make sound decisions into the future. A shuttered company
isn't very good at customer support.
My $0.02


Shawn

I don't think this lawsuit is at all frivolous. Meade DID market the
RCX as a Ritchey-Chretien ("based", if you read the fine print), and
is selling it at a price lower than any real R-C could go for. The
plaintiffs HAVE seen a precipitous drop in sales since the RCX came on
the market. The RCX is NOT a Ritchey-Chretien.

What the court has to decide is if this is cause and effect. Would
the plaintiffs also have seen a drop-off in sales if the RCX had been
put on the market under another name? I'm sure that very question
will come before the court.

Whichever way the case turns out, I think it's high time that scope
manufacturers stop poaching on the reputations of names such as
"Plossl" and "Ritchey-Chretien" to market products that aren't using
those designs.

-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
.