3 ms·

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 negat

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.

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.