Rifle Scopes Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

#51
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

Was Scott contracted or required for a better word to only make a sale on premier products @ MAP? Or is it by agreement of premier and it's retailers that they have to advertise them @ MAP?

I know this is late to the discussion. It's also contradicting of the guy IMO to get a discount at LO and then take it to premier. By premier's standard Terry should be either required to MAP or return his purchased product.
 
#53
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Legal status in the United States and Can</span>ada</span>

In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[2] Criminal prosecutions may only be handled by the U.S. Department of Justice, but the Federal Trade Commission also has jurisdiction for civil antitrust violations. Many State Attorneys General also bring antitrust cases and have antitrust offices, such as Virginia, New York, and California. Private individuals or organizations can bring their own lawsuits for triple damages for antitrust violations and also recover attorneys fees..[3]
Colluding on price amongst competitors, also known as horizontal price fixing, is viewed as a per se violation of the Sherman Act regardless of the market impact or alleged efficiency of the action. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vertical price fixing by a manufacturer and its retailers, also known as retail price maintenance, is not a per se violation.
Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the antitrust laws. This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement.[4] Experts generally advise that competitors avoid even the appearance of agreeing on price.[5]
In Canada, it is an indictable criminal offence under section 45 of the Competition Act. Bid rigging is considered a form of price fixing and is illegal in both the United States (s.1 Sherman Act) and Canada (s.47 Competition Act). <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">In the United States, agreements to fix, raise, lower, stabilize, or otherwise set a price are illegal per se.[6] It does not matter if the price agreed upon is reasonable or for a good or altruistic cause; or if the agreement is explicit and formal or unspoken and tacit. In the United States, price-fixing also includes agreements to hold prices the same, discount prices (even if based on financial need or income), set credit terms, agree on a price schedule or scale, adopt a common formula to figure prices, banning price advertising, or agreeing to adhere to prices that one announ</span>ces</span>.[7] Although price fixing usually means sellers agreeing on price, it can also include agreements among buyers to fix the price at which they will buy products.

Class Action anyone?
 
#54
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Class Action anyone?</div></div>Sure, once you prove you have standing, i.e. that the proposed defendants have done you legal harm and that you have sufficient connection to the case. And while we're at it, let's ignore the rest of the industry, most of which has the same sort of policy.
 
#55
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: azimutha</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Class Action anyone?</div></div>Sure, once you prove you have standing, i.e. that the proposed defendants have done you legal harm and that you have sufficient connection to the case. And while we're at it, let's ignore the rest of the industry, most of which has the same sort of policy. </div></div>

Anyone who has bought a Premier regardless of price they paid has been a victim of this price fixing scam.

Premier & ATI are the only companies stupid enough to admit this on the internet and post a pretty water tight confession.

Regardless of who else is doing it.
 
#56
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

Class Action...LMAO. Go back to smoking your bong kid.

Man, and I thought the state of CA is law suit happy.


Can someone send me a PM when the bandwagon has stopped?

Never have I seen so many sheep run to aide a person that broke the rules, got caught, and now trying to do as much damage to the companies involved as he can. Reminds me of a crazy ex GF I had in HS.

I am still waiting for all these so called Premier and ATI haters to buy S&Bs and sell their Premiers on the cheap.

Talked to Mike Cecil today expecting him to have about 500 S&B ordered, but nope. Looks like all these folks that "were going to buy a 3000.00 optic" were just kicking tires.
 
#58
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vipa</div><div class="ubbcode-body">David, if I am reading your response correctly, I think we are both reading from the same page...

Most of the posts of support for LO and derisory towards ATI have been from <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">consumers</span></span> who have no concept of the bigger picture. Most consumers feel that they got a great deal because they got a big discount... Fantastic, so this week you have a few more dollars in your pocket... is price alone the only indication of a good deal?

You can only buy goods if there are people selling them and the process of undercutting the next guy only serves to force people to stop selling that product... without controls in place, the marketplace would be decimated quickly and, once all the competition has gone, the retailer left can charge what the heck he likes..

MAP is just one of those controls and only works to protect EVERYONE if EVERYONE plays ball.. It IS NOT the same as price fixing... </div></div>

Well, you've certainly drank deeply of the Kool-Aid. 'Decimated'? Really? Doomsday 'charge what the heck he likes'? 'Protect EVERYONE'? Are you sure my dog won't die and kids around the nation won't get cancer as well?
laugh.gif


I think you're missing a very simple, very important point: If a retailer drives the competition out of business and then "charge what the heck he likes", he's just opened the door to new competition. Problem solved, the market self-corrects.

MAP doesn't "protect EVERYONE". It protects established dealers who do not wish to change their business model to keep up with the times. MAP is a bandaid, the real solution is adaptation.
 
#59
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Class Action...LMAO. Go back to smoking your bong kid.

Man, and I thought the state of CA is law suit happy.


Can someone send me a PM when the bandwagon has stopped?

Never have I seen so many sheep run to aide a person that broke the rules, got caught, and now trying to do as much damage to the companies involved as he can. Reminds me of a crazy ex GF I had in HS.

I am still waiting for all these so called Premier and ATI haters to buy S&Bs and sell their Premiers on the cheap.

Talked to Mike Cecil today expecting him to have about 500 S&B ordered, but nope. Looks like all these folks that "were going to buy a 3000.00 optic" were just kicking tires.



</div></div>

I purchased 4 S&B PM II 5-25x56 for quite a bit less than a Premier Heritage. Just saying
 
#61
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Vu</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Before or after this whole deal? If before, then I was not talking to you.

If after, good for you. Pass on the deals.

Vu </div></div>

It was before. After looking at the size difference between the scope and being able to get a great deal on the S&Bs I went with S&B. However, I plan on purchasing a least 2 more for some builds I have in the works. I did think about Premier. However, to be honest I didn't know I could get a break from Scott on them or I would have tried them. Ever time I have purchased a scope from Scott it has been for the price listed on his website. On passing on the deals, I will to people I know and trust; nobody else.
 
#62
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Legal status in the United States and Can</span>ada</span>

In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[2] Criminal prosecutions may only be handled by the U.S. Department of Justice, but the Federal Trade Commission also has jurisdiction for civil antitrust violations. Many State Attorneys General also bring antitrust cases and have antitrust offices, such as Virginia, New York, and California. Private individuals or organizations can bring their own lawsuits for triple damages for antitrust violations and also recover attorneys fees..[3]
Colluding on price amongst competitors, also known as horizontal price fixing, is viewed as a per se violation of the Sherman Act regardless of the market impact or alleged efficiency of the action. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vertical price fixing by a manufacturer and its retailers, also known as retail price maintenance, is not a per se violation.
Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the antitrust laws. This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement.[4] Experts generally advise that competitors avoid even the appearance of agreeing on price.[5]
In Canada, it is an indictable criminal offence under section 45 of the Competition Act. Bid rigging is considered a form of price fixing and is illegal in both the United States (s.1 Sherman Act) and Canada (s.47 Competition Act). <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">In the United States, agreements to fix, raise, lower, stabilize, or otherwise set a price are illegal per se.[6] It does not matter if the price agreed upon is reasonable or for a good or altruistic cause; or if the agreement is explicit and formal or unspoken and tacit. In the United States, price-fixing also includes agreements to hold prices the same, discount prices (even if based on financial need or income), set credit terms, agree on a price schedule or scale, adopt a common formula to figure prices, banning price advertising, or agreeing to adhere to prices that one announ</span>ces</span>.[7] Although price fixing usually means sellers agreeing on price, it can also include agreements among buyers to fix the price at which they will buy products.

Class Action anyone? </div></div>


now look up the definition of "price fixing" as related to your post. show me where it says that a single manufacture requiring it's dealers to sell at a certain price is illegal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Anyone who has bought a Premier regardless of price they paid has been a victim of this price fixing scam.

Premier & ATI are the only companies stupid enough to admit this on the internet and post a pretty water tight confession.

Regardless of who else is doing it. </div></div>

scam? how do you figure?
 
#63
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

He just figures. Right now, having just ponied up for three new Hensoldts, a NF, two USOs and four S&Bs, he's lining up a lawyer in East Texas to get the class action rolling.
 
#64
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Legal status in the United States and Can</span>ada</span>

In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[2] Criminal prosecutions may only be handled by the U.S. Department of Justice, but the Federal Trade Commission also has jurisdiction for civil antitrust violations. Many State Attorneys General also bring antitrust cases and have antitrust offices, such as Virginia, New York, and California. Private individuals or organizations can bring their own lawsuits for triple damages for antitrust violations and also recover attorneys fees..[3]
Colluding on price amongst competitors, also known as horizontal price fixing, is viewed as a per se violation of the Sherman Act regardless of the market impact or alleged efficiency of the action. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vertical price fixing by a manufacturer and its retailers, also known as retail price maintenance, is not a per se violation.
Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the antitrust laws. This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement.[4] Experts generally advise that competitors avoid even the appearance of agreeing on price.[5]
In Canada, it is an indictable criminal offence under section 45 of the Competition Act. Bid rigging is considered a form of price fixing and is illegal in both the United States (s.1 Sherman Act) and Canada (s.47 Competition Act). <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">In the United States, agreements to fix, raise, lower, stabilize, or otherwise set a price are illegal per se.[6] It does not matter if the price agreed upon is reasonable or for a good or altruistic cause; or if the agreement is explicit and formal or unspoken and tacit. In the United States, price-fixing also includes agreements to hold prices the same, discount prices (even if based on financial need or income), set credit terms, agree on a price schedule or scale, adopt a common formula to figure prices, banning price advertising, or agreeing to adhere to prices that one announ</span>ces</span>.[7] Although price fixing usually means sellers agreeing on price, it can also include agreements among buyers to fix the price at which they will buy products.

Class Action anyone? </div></div>


now look up the definition of "price fixing" as related to your post. show me where it says that a single manufacture requiring it's dealers to sell at a certain price is illegal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Anyone who has bought a Premier regardless of price they paid has been a victim of this price fixing scam.

Premier & ATI are the only companies stupid enough to admit this on the internet and post a pretty water tight confession.

Regardless of who else is doing it. </div></div>

scam? how do you figure?</div></div>

Price Fixing

The agreement to inhibit price competition by raising, depressing, fixing, or stabilizing prices is the most serious example of a per se violation under the Sherman Act. Under the act, it is immaterial whether the fixed prices are set at a maximum price, a minimum price, the actual cost, or the fair market price. It is also immaterial under the law whether the fixed price is reasonable.

All horizontal and vertical price-fixing agreements are illegal per se. Horizontal price-fixing agreements include agreements among sellers to establish maximum or minimum prices on certain goods or services. This can also include competitors' changing their prices simultaneously in some circumstances. Also significant is the fact that horizontal price-fixing agreements may be direct or indirect and still be illegal. Thus, a promotion or discount that is tied closely to price cannot be raised, depressed, fixed, or stabilized, without a Sherman Act violation. Vertical price-fixing agreements include situations where a wholesaler mandates the minimum or maximum price at which retailers may sell certain products.

Its pretty damn clear right from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Price+Fixing
 
#65
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

Easy solution for Scott, and any other retailer would be to take items out of the box, set it on the counter and then box it back up. Call it a demo and sell it for whatever they want. That would certainly avoid any MAP/MSP problems.

My personal view is that in today's world of internet shopping, if a company has to actively enforce MAP pricing, it is doomed. Price will reflect what a product is worth. We are getting closer to a pure market every day. Those of you who own businesses and think that is wrong should probably start looking for a way to take your profits and move on. I hear the government is hiring.

One thing I think is funny in this whole deal is that I haven't seen SWFA complaining that someone is undercutting them on the super sniper scopes. Most manufacturers could learn a lesson from them. If you want to control the price of your product, sell it yourself, cut out the middlemen (especially ATI and their ilk), and take all the profits you can handle.
 
#67
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GreatGonzo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...One thing I think is funny in this whole deal is that I haven't seen SWFA complaining that someone is undercutting them on the super sniper scopes. Most manufacturers could learn a lesson from them. If you want to control the price of your product, <span style="font-weight: bold">sell it yourself, cut out the middlemen (especially ATI and their ilk), and take all the profits you can handle.</span> </div></div>

Yep, that is the way things should be for most. Pure, restricted dealer networks are a thing of the past that is causing a lot of issues all over this country in most all industries. Just ask any one in the heavy equipment industry how easy it is to order parts, machines, and services through a dealer that does not stock anything and tells the customer that he will have to wait 20+ weeks for things to start coming in...this is why companies like my clients are designing and building their own machines because you can't use the "good ol' boys club" way of doing things any more. And its about damn time we learn that all over.

No offence ment towards the good dealers, but you have to have value added or things should not work out.
 
#68
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MP15</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well said 1KHit, very well said. Here's another thought to ponder. How many dealers out there carry Premier scopes? How many of them are site sponsers? Guess we'll never know, but could it be that there's a rat right under our noses that whined and set this all up, all due to the fact that Scott was willing to sell for less and provide first class customer service too boot?

Scott certainly has a different business model and has taken it his own way. To his credit it works well. Here you have basically a husband & wife team that have become players in the higher end optics market who have figured out how to do it through alot of hard work, taking less profit for themselves, and still dole out straigt forward advice, honest opinions, and follow up customer service after the fact. All that, and still can keep overhead low.

Why punish a guy who has figured it out? Seems to me some bigger retailer, who through his own decisions has higher overhead, less customer service and and unwillingness to adapt suddenly felt threatened. The market with the internet has changed the game, adapt or go away.

The reason many of us are so loyal to Scott - no matter what you buy, be it a mid level optic or something "top shelf", he makes every customer feel as if they are the most important customer at that moment.

I have no dog in this fight. I do however support the little guy and hope Scott comes out of this on the other end better than before.

Just my opinion, you may disagree. </div></div>

I suspect this is EXACTLY the case.
 
#69
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Legal status in the United States and Can</span>ada</span>

In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.[2] Criminal prosecutions may only be handled by the U.S. Department of Justice, but the Federal Trade Commission also has jurisdiction for civil antitrust violations. Many State Attorneys General also bring antitrust cases and have antitrust offices, such as Virginia, New York, and California. Private individuals or organizations can bring their own lawsuits for triple damages for antitrust violations and also recover attorneys fees..[3]
Colluding on price amongst competitors, also known as horizontal price fixing, is viewed as a per se violation of the Sherman Act regardless of the market impact or alleged efficiency of the action. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that vertical price fixing by a manufacturer and its retailers, also known as retail price maintenance, is not a per se violation.
Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the antitrust laws. This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement.[4] Experts generally advise that competitors avoid even the appearance of agreeing on price.[5]
In Canada, it is an indictable criminal offence under section 45 of the Competition Act. Bid rigging is considered a form of price fixing and is illegal in both the United States (s.1 Sherman Act) and Canada (s.47 Competition Act). <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">In the United States, agreements to fix, raise, lower, stabilize, or otherwise set a price are illegal per se.[6] It does not matter if the price agreed upon is reasonable or for a good or altruistic cause; or if the agreement is explicit and formal or unspoken and tacit. In the United States, price-fixing also includes agreements to hold prices the same, discount prices (even if based on financial need or income), set credit terms, agree on a price schedule or scale, adopt a common formula to figure prices, banning price advertising, or agreeing to adhere to prices that one announ</span>ces</span>.[7] Although price fixing usually means sellers agreeing on price, it can also include agreements among buyers to fix the price at which they will buy products.

Class Action anyone? </div></div>


now look up the definition of "price fixing" as related to your post. show me where it says that a single manufacture requiring it's dealers to sell at a certain price is illegal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Anyone who has bought a Premier regardless of price they paid has been a victim of this price fixing scam.

Premier & ATI are the only companies stupid enough to admit this on the internet and post a pretty water tight confession.

Regardless of who else is doing it. </div></div>

scam? how do you figure?</div></div>

Price Fixing

The agreement to inhibit price competition by raising, depressing, fixing, or stabilizing prices is the most serious example of a per se violation under the Sherman Act. Under the act, it is immaterial whether the fixed prices are set at a maximum price, a minimum price, the actual cost, or the fair market price. It is also immaterial under the law whether the fixed price is reasonable.

All horizontal and vertical price-fixing agreements are illegal per se. Horizontal price-fixing agreements include agreements among sellers to establish maximum or minimum prices on certain goods or services. This can also include competitors' changing their prices simultaneously in some circumstances. Also significant is the fact that horizontal price-fixing agreements may be direct or indirect and still be illegal. Thus, a promotion or discount that is tied closely to price cannot be raised, depressed, fixed, or stabilized, without a Sherman Act violation. Vertical price-fixing agreements include situations where a wholesaler mandates the minimum or maximum price at which retailers may sell certain products.

Its pretty damn clear right from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Price+Fixing

</div></div>

well then if you believe a SINGLE manufacture dictating what it's dealers can sell it's product for is illegal still today, you better call your lawyer to get that class action suit going. or is that just something you want someone else to do?
 
#70
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

Good luck finding a deal for the next few weeks. Sellers might think if they cut someone a small break that the camera crews will pop out of the bushes like a bad tv show...
 
#71
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: David S.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looking at the responses from various people here I think I can see a trend:
map_be.jpg
</div></div>

Do you work for Optronika?

I'm asking because you obviously have the company's website in your signature and your location is listed as Hannover, and Optronika is a nice small drive south in Biebertal.

Color me curious is all.
 
#72
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

The education continues.....sign me up for next semester......Management 201----How ATI failed in a hundred days or less
 
#73
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....if you believe a SINGLE manufacture dictating what it's dealers can sell it's product for is illegal still today.............
</div></div>

That's what the law says, like it or not. Unless you can point at a Federal Court decision (after 1895) that stated otherwise.

You can sell me items X - but cannot tell me for how much I can re-sell them. Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 et seq.), you know...

Let's now review the legal definitions, shall we? Unless you want to offer a more "authoritative" source, let's use http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Price+Fixing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Legal Dictionary</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-family: 'Century Gothic'">

<span style="font-weight: bold">Price fixing:</span> The agreement to inhibit price competition by raising, depressing, fixing, or stabilizing prices is the most serious example of a per se violation under the Sherman Act. Under the act, it is immaterial whether the fixed prices are set at a maximum price, a minimum price, the actual cost, or the fair market price. It is also immaterial under the law whether the fixed price is reasonable.

<span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Vertical price-fixing</span> agreements include situations where a wholesaler mandates the minimum or maximum price at which retailers may sell certain products.</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Horizontal price-fixing</span> agreements include agreements among sellers to establish maximum or minimum prices on certain goods or services. This can also include competitors' changing their prices simultaneously in some circumstances.

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 11pt">All horizontal and vertical price-fixing agreements are illegal per se.</span></span>

</span>
</div></div>

<span style="font-size: 11pt">
Now do you understand why all the contracts, agreements and such choose to talk about <span style="font-style: italic">Minimum <span style="font-weight: bold">Advertised</span> Price</span>, <span style="font-style: italic">Manufacturer <span style="font-weight: bold">Suggested</span> Retail Price</span>, etc?
</span>
 
#74
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mouse07410</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> That's what the law says, like it or not. Unless you can point at a Federal Court decision (after 1895) that stated otherwise.

You can sell me items X - but cannot tell me for how much I can re-sell them. Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 et seq.), you know...

Let's now review the legal definitions, shall we? Unless you want to offer a more "authoritative" source, let's use http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Price+Fixing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Legal Dictionary</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-family: 'Century Gothic'">

<span style="font-weight: bold">Price fixing:</span> The agreement to inhibit price competition by raising, depressing, fixing, or stabilizing prices is the most serious example of a per se violation under the Sherman Act. Under the act, it is immaterial whether the fixed prices are set at a maximum price, a minimum price, the actual cost, or the fair market price. It is also immaterial under the law whether the fixed price is reasonable.

<span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Vertical price-fixing</span> agreements include situations where a wholesaler mandates the minimum or maximum price at which retailers may sell certain products.</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">Horizontal price-fixing</span> agreements include agreements among sellers to establish maximum or minimum prices on certain goods or services. This can also include competitors' changing their prices simultaneously in some circumstances.

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-size: 11pt">All horizontal and vertical price-fixing agreements are illegal per se.</span></span>

</span>
</div></div>

<span style="font-size: 11pt">
Now do you understand why all the contracts, agreements and such choose to talk about <span style="font-style: italic">Minimum <span style="font-weight: bold">Advertised</span> Price</span>, <span style="font-style: italic">Manufacturer <span style="font-weight: bold">Suggested</span> Retail Price</span>, etc?
</span>
</div></div>

leegin creative leather products, inc. v. psks, inc.
 
#75
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: auge_zwo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cuban Croc</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Heltsley</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rware91</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(...) It is about Premier turning MAP into MSP.
</div></div>

Agree! </div></div>

Also agree. Just don't like the way it was handled. </div></div>

As I see it it's about what they call "spirit of MAP". That basically seems to be MSP, they just don't call it that. So it doesn't matter if MAP was technically broken or not, they will say that LO giving an individual discount contradicts the "spirit" of MAP.

The "unveiling" of the "offending invoice" at that NRA show “shocked and embarrassed" the manufacturers staff?
grin.gif
Really? The only thing shocking and embarassing I can see about that invoice is the dishonorable behavior by Mr. Terry L. Dean.



</div></div>

Not sure if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read every response.
However to my way of thinking one justifiable reason why the MAP is being enforced by Premier Reticles could perhaps be that when Premier Reticles was awarded the US government contract to supply these scopes to the government they may have been on the "high" side and so in order to "justify" this high price (to the government) Premier may see it fit to "enforce" the MAP (fixed high price) to monitor/control the selling of these scopes at this high price. Otherwise some smart cookie in the defence department might crack onto the fact that the public are being sold these scopes at a much cheaper price than Uncle Sam and so Premier Reticles might then be asked why is this so etc....?
Please accept my apologies and please correct me if I have got this wrong.
 
#76
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">leegin creative leather products, inc. v. psks, inc.</div></div>
Indeed, Supreme Court in 2007 reversed its 96-years old position on Vertical Price Fixing from <span style="font-style: italic">per se</span> to <span style="font-style: italic">rule of reason</span>. Illuminating. Thank you!

In this case the dissenting opinion wins my sympathy (it was a narrow margin), and I thank you for bringing up this case of 2007.
 
#77
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fx1</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Class Action anyone? </div></div>

Unless LO has been dinged financially (I don't think he was) I don't see any standing for a lawsuit. It's not like ATI is a manufacturer whose factory dumps chemicals in a river or something; they're just a middleman.

They're allowed to say who gets to sell their product and they will play favorites. Shit happens.
 
#78
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mouse07410</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 300sniper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">leegin creative leather products, inc. v. psks, inc.</div></div>
Indeed, Supreme Court in 2007 reversed its 96-years old position on Vertical Price Fixing from <span style="font-style: italic">per se</span> to <span style="font-style: italic">rule of reason</span>. Illuminating. Thank you!

In this case the dissenting opinion wins my sympathy (it was a narrow margin), and I thank you for bringing up this case of 2007. </div></div>

to be fair, i learned a lot about this stuff over the last couple days. before this drama started, i believed the definition being used for horizontal price fixing was THE definition of price fixing. i didn't realize that what is being called vertical price fixing even fell under the definition of price fixing. reading up on it is when i stumbled upon leegin creative leather products, inc. v. psks, inc.
 
#79
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

All interesting stuff about the law, etc., etc. From a business perspective, I think Premier botched this one. I am not talking about from a legal standpoint. They are welcome to discontinue business with Scott because they feel his pricing is too low.

From a marketing standpoint, they f'ed up a relationship with a respected retailer of their product. They would argue that they had communication with Scott, but the fact is, they sent him a form letter. If they had a problem, they should have contacted him and only him directly. What they really wanted to do was publicly flog him to get all the other retailers in line. What they got was this... yet another controversy about the integrity of PR. Ironic that the acronym for Premier Reticles is PR because this is just what they don't need.

Consumers gripe about Nightforce/Lightforce's enforcement of MAP, but that is all they do is gripe. You won't end up with an embarrassment like this happening with one of Nightforce's retailers because they would handle it much more deftly.

The fact is, PR was ill-served by ATI. ATI should have strongly advised against this approach because of potential backlash.

I have a graduate degree in marketing from a top business school and spent a good 3+ years as a marketing consultant. I wouldn't even call this bad marketing. It is almost intentionally bad marketing. And in a market that is getting more crowded by the month, missteps like these can be fatal.

One thing I understand better now is PR's structure. Optronika is clearly a hedge. If PR goes bankrupt, Optronika stays intact and Chris goes back to dealing with OEM's in a service capacity (just like the old PR). By the looks of it, I think it is time to refocus on that area of the company because clearly, PR has little understanding of consumer markets.

I will add one more thing. They are concerned about channel conflict between online and bricks and mortar, I think prematurely. PR will have to go way downstream before they get distribution at Walmart. Even Cabela's is a stretch for now. The market for $2,000+ scopes is pretty narrow and can easily be served through the online channel. They want to be Leupold when really they are Schmidt and Bender. When they go downmarket, they can start worrying about channel conflict. Right now, they still need the online retailers who are willing to take a risk on a new product that costs thousands of dollars and comes with it a large carriage risk.
 
#81
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

Comes back to a total lack of business savy, common sense and understanding of the customer base by PR/ATI. THe penny wise pound foolish approach is a death pill in business from my experience. In a niche market they should want as many of the scopes in shooters hands as possible but instead they are alienating a key portion of the client base that is willing to spend $$$ for quality kit.

Two phrases come to mind when I see suppliers do business this way "Dumb Asses" and "Rat Bastards"
 
#82
Re: Response from Premier Reticles ref: Liberty Optics

I'm pretty sure taking action was not an easy decision for Premier to make. In fact, I would bet Scott was one of Premier's larger dealers. However, at the end of the day, Premier had an obligation to their other dealers to attempt to enforce the rules of the dealer agreement. They decided to discipline him with a 90 suspension and <span style="font-weight: bold">Scott decided to longer carry their products</span>.

So, why is everyone mad a Premier? Is it because the word got out that they wanted all their dealers to be able to make a fair margin so they'd be excited about promoting and selling their products?

Anyone who thinks Premier is "greedy" is retarded. MAP policy makes the dealers more money, not the manufacturer. In fact, Premier suspending Scott for 90 days was obviously going to cost Premier money, but they supported that move either way because of their obligation to their other dealers. Kudos to them for making a tough decision....

If you think Premier is out of line for wanting to make sure their dealers made a good margin then again you have...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: branson1369</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... a total lack of business savy, common sense and understanding.... </div></div>




 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rpatton73
Optics OPTICS For Sale... US Optics, NF, S&B, Meopta, Leupold, March, Zeiss, Alcan and more.
Replies
50
Views
3K
Rpatton73
Rpatton73
R
  • Locked
If you've been scammed by Scott Berish Liberty Optics
Replies
45
Views
6K
MarinePMI
MarinePMI
T
FNG from Arizona, but I also have a question!
Replies
0
Views
104
tacticalteddygrahams
T
sirhrmechanic
Stolen US Optics Scope... SCOPE HAS BEEN RECOVERED
Replies
32
Views
3K
Skunk
Skunk
gr8fuldoug
Winners Chosen - Next Drawing is August 7
Replies
0
Views
120
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts