3 ms·

I'm sure almost every manufacturer who wishes to remain in business would strongly disagree with you. Many have spent decades and millions of dollars building

I'm sure almost every manufacturer who wishes to remain in business would strongly disagree with you. Many have spent decades and millions of dollars building & supporting their sales channels. The assertion that people should be able to do whatever they want with products on a scale large enough to damage a manufacturer's business is flawed. I propose that you to start and grow a manufacturing company and tell me if your perspective changes. *Disclaimer, I work with manufacturers to solve these types of issues.

icebraining 14y ago
I'm sorry, but that's not an argument, that's just bias. In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad.
- jborden13 14y ago
  It's an argument and a bias. I clearly stated the context of my relationship with manufacturers for a reason. There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating. > In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad. No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason...
  - icebraining 14y ago
    There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating. Negative effects may or may not be compensated by the benefits accrued by consumers. Can you point me to the evidence that suggests that it would be devastating? No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason... Sure; whether this specific one actually solves the problem -and without causing bigger ones- is a different matter, though. Losing first-sales rights seems a rather important problem to me.
    - jborden13 14y ago
      I'm not advocating the repeal of the First-sale doctrine. It's the abuse of the doctrine that is troublesome. The doctrine should protect non-commercial isolated sales of goods by consumers. But when the sales transition into a larger scale business is when the problems only begin. Gray markets can be devastating in an economic capacity (revenue, profitability, brand equity, sales channels, consumer satisfaction, warranty costs, r&d) and in a social capacity (consumer safety, environmental costs, tax revenue, organized crime) Below is a very small sample of the negative impacts of gray markets: http://www.kpmg.com.hk/en/virtual_library/Information_Communications_Entertainment/The_grey_market0302.pdf http://www.kpmg.com.hk/en/virtual_library/Information_Commun... Osawa & Co. v. B&H Photo United States v. Hill Fagan v. AmerisourceBergen Gorp. Lynn v. Serono Inc.
darkarmani 14y ago
> I'm sure almost every manufacturer who wishes to remain in business would strongly disagree with you... propose that you to start and grow a manufacturing company and tell me if your perspective changes. Of course an entrenched industry would disagree with any actions that decrease profit. I'm sure if I grew a manufacturing company, I'd also want the gov't to not tax any of my profits, but that doesn't inform at all about the morality of my position. Let the market decide how the pricing should happen. Why should the gov't artificially segment the market?

icebraining 14y ago

I'm sorry, but that's not an argument, that's just bias. In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad.

jborden13 14y ago
It's an argument and a bias. I clearly stated the context of my relationship with manufacturers for a reason. There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating. > In principle everyone is against policies that are damaging to one's life, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily bad. No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason...
- icebraining 14y ago
  There is plenty of evidence that shows the negative effects of gray markets on manufacturers. The long-term macroeconomic effects that these types of issues have on manufacturers can be devastating. Negative effects may or may not be compensated by the benefits accrued by consumers. Can you point me to the evidence that suggests that it would be devastating? No doubt. But regulations exist in society for a reason... Sure; whether this specific one actually solves the problem -and without causing bigger ones- is a different matter, though. Losing first-sales rights seems a rather important problem to me.
  - jborden13 14y ago
    I'm not advocating the repeal of the First-sale doctrine. It's the abuse of the doctrine that is troublesome. The doctrine should protect non-commercial isolated sales of goods by consumers. But when the sales transition into a larger scale business is when the problems only begin. Gray markets can be devastating in an economic capacity (revenue, profitability, brand equity, sales channels, consumer satisfaction, warranty costs, r&d) and in a social capacity (consumer safety, environmental costs, tax revenue, organized crime) Below is a very small sample of the negative impacts of gray markets: http://www.kpmg.com.hk/en/virtual_library/Information_Communications_Entertainment/The_grey_market0302.pdf http://www.kpmg.com.hk/en/virtual_library/Information_Commun... Osawa & Co. v. B&H Photo United States v. Hill Fagan v. AmerisourceBergen Gorp. Lynn v. Serono Inc.

darkarmani 14y ago

> I'm sure almost every manufacturer who wishes to remain in business would strongly disagree with you... propose that you to start and grow a manufacturing company and tell me if your perspective changes. Of course an entrenched industry would disagree with any actions that decrease profit. I'm sure if I grew a manufacturing company, I'd also want the gov't to not tax any of my profits, but that doesn't inform at all about the morality of my position. Let the market decide how the pricing should happen. Why should the gov't artificially segment the market?