4 ms·
> The fact that this isn't mentioned on Wikipedia might mean that Luxxotica has been very good at scrubbing their online persona. It's on Wikipedia: "Luxottic
by brightlancer 6y ago
> The fact that this isn't mentioned on Wikipedia might mean that Luxxotica has been very good at scrubbing their online persona.
It's on Wikipedia:
"Luxottica acquired Oakley in November 2007 for US$2.1 billion. Oakley had tried to dispute their prices because of Luxottica's large marketshare, and Luxottica responded by dropping Oakley from their stores, causing their stock price to drop, followed by Luxottica's hostile take over of the company."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxottica
There's even a sub-section on "Monopolistic pricing practices".
- AlexandrB 6y agoOops, I based that on the Oakley wikipedia article (which only mentions vague antitrust concerns[1]) and the parent's ignorance about Luxxotica's purchase of Oakley (I assumed he looked at the Wikipedia article). [1] > Luxottica's acquisition of Oakley has been criticized as potential violation of Antitrust laws. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakley,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakley,_Inc.)
- 0xffff2 6y agoI did read that section, but it's not immediately clear to me that those two things are causally related. Yes, Luxxotica cut Oakley out of their stores and Oakley stock lost a lot of value. But, Luxxotica bought Oakley 6 years later. Where's the link exactly? Did Oakley's stock continue to decline? Was there shareholder demand to sell? I was in the US Army in the time surrounding the purchase. The amount of Oakley product that was purchased by both the government and individual soldiers should have been enough to keep Oakley afloat all on its own.