closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 410

Thread: Cousins taking on Swatch Group

  1. #151
    Master TKH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    3,858
    Hi Paul - feel your frustration and sympathise for all watch lovers old and new

    Sadly as previously stated it's much what I went through with GM and Ford in early 2000's with Block Exemption chaired by the dreadful Mario Monte who clearly did not understand the motor industry and consumer needs and the effect of BE and meddling, Or forecast how it would cost consumers more as AR's crank up hourly rates to recover tooling investment and constant training which runs at £5'000 per month for a medium size dealer.

    Swatch will argue that for the good of its employees and the reputation of its brands and continued future success it must protect the supply chain by fully controlling output (retail parts supply and repair)to guarantee customers have a faultless experience, and so they will as you also highlight establish "standards and requirements" for any would be Authorised Repairer, which will involve investment, training and Swatch staff random visits to inspect workshops, there are those who will go for it and become an AR seeing that if they invest they will be one of a very few Swatch AR outlets and hence get a bigger slice of the cake and be able to charge more per hour and hence recoup the investment.

    Cousins are to be admired for having a go and protecting the business they have built and those who they supply however Swatch will have a Godzilla of a legal team and will argue they are merely protecting their brand, employees and consumers from the patchy aftermarket (not true I know )

    A compromise would be a lower entry cost network of Heritage AR's as Aston Martin have who look after the older stuff and get factory parts supply and technical assistance.(usually other way around).😉


    Good luck to those it affects I hope you get some result or compromise

    Time will tell

  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    Is it really feasible that 3D printing could manufacture the tiny parts used in a watch movement? My gut feeling says no.

    I know little about 3D printing, I know a lot more about watches; does anyone who knows about both feel that 3D printing is a feasible way of producing parts?

    Paul
    I don't know that much about watches, but I do know about producing intricate precision parts and I have experience with 3D printing.
    I do not believe that currently parts could be produced to the tolerances and surface finishes required with 3D printing alone. I'm sure this will change, but it's a way off yet.

    Just my opinion obviously and if anyone has any evidence to the contrary I would be interested to hear.


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

  3. #153
    Grand Master markrlondon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    25,353
    Blog Entries
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    Sadly there will be more and more watches left in the back of sock drawers!
    [...]
    Sadly I think the time for negotiation and compromise has passed, the Swiss have made a stand and they'll be loathe to lose face at this stage.

    The one major manufacturer who hasn`t gone down this path is LVMH. They haven`t supplied wholesalers for years but will supply bona fide repairers directly without putting too many hurdles in the way. Unless they change strategy this means TAGs and Zeniths will be easier for service in the future.

    Rant over, back to the bench to finish work on a 50s Omega.........even though Swatch Group have branded the likes of me to be totally unworthy. What's really crazy is the fact that they're treating some very highly regarded professional repairers the same way.....and that really is wrong.
    I fear you are correct about all this, as things stand. Good for LVMH for retaining a more customer-friendly, long term business-sustainable outlook. For luxury purchases I suspect that the long term does matter (even if it does not become obvious for many years).

    However, nothing is static. Current policies are not necessarily future policies and policies change in accordance with demand and image. There is still hope.

    Additionally and perhaps more likely, all of the above can be avoided through third party manufacture of parts. It can happen and technology offers possible answers, 3D printing amongst them albeit with development. All that really holds things back is not primarily technology but demand.

    If the demand is there then someone will develop what is needed and supply what is wanted and a market will form (including, I think, for cost effective one off parts, both internal mechanical parts and case parts). I suspect that an economically viable market can be formed.
    Last edited by markrlondon; 28th April 2017 at 11:58.

  4. #154
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Can I offer some information?

    Dear Forum,

    Some of you will remember me from my efforts to devise and organise the Industry Conference in 2015, and then from my efforts with the Industry Action Fund. For the last 18 months I have been working full time for Cousins on this legal action.

    I am not willing to spend any time discussing the daily running of Cousins business, that is not my area of responsibility, but I would be happy to explain what the law says about parts supply, and explain why Cousins is fighting so hard on this issue. Would that be of any help?

    Regards

    Steve Domb

  5. #155
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    I'm less concerned with the legal nicities, I'm more interested in the likelihood of Cousins' action being successful. Potentially, this could be expensive for Cousins if they lose, or fail to gain any concessions. On that basis I'd like to think they have a reasonable chance, I hardly think Anthony Cousins would embark on a fools errand........or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

    Paul

  6. #156
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Dear Forum,

    Some of you will remember me from my efforts to devise and organise the Industry Conference in 2015, and then from my efforts with the Industry Action Fund. For the last 18 months I have been working full time for Cousins on this legal action.

    I am not willing to spend any time discussing the daily running of Cousins business, that is not my area of responsibility, but I would be happy to explain what the law says about parts supply, and explain why Cousins is fighting so hard on this issue. Would that be of any help?

    Regards

    Steve Domb
    Some direction from your position would be more than welcomed I'm sure !

  7. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomaitch View Post
    Some direction from your position would be more than welcomed I'm sure !
    Yes, Steve, it would indeed be of some help.

    Thank you for the offer.

    Scott
    It's just a matter of time...

  8. #158
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    I'm less concerned with the legal nicities, I'm more interested in the likelihood of Cousins' action being successful. Potentially, this could be expensive for Cousins if they lose, or fail to gain any concessions. On that basis I'd like to think they have a reasonable chance, I hardly think Anthony Cousins would embark on a fools errand........or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

    Paul
    Hi Paul,

    I don't like answering a question with a question, so I promise you will get a full answer, but can you please tell me if you are asking me for my opinion, or are you asking me for information about the law and the case so that you can formulate your own? Can you tell me also what you mean by "legal nicities"?

    Thanks

    Steve

  9. #159
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Hi all,

    Before anyone shuts down just because of the title of this post, can I assure you that this is easy to understand and very important if you want to discuss this issue.

    Competition Law is all about protecting markets and consumers from being skewed and abused by "dominant undertakings", which means either a single company, or by groups of companies that have made agreements between them. The protection is needed to prevent consumers being ripped off by over inflated pricing, and to make sure that anyone wanting to enter that market with new ideas and products that would benefit consumers is not prevented from doing so.

    UK and European Competition Law is written in Articles 101 and 102 of the EU constitution. They are very brief and well written laws. Article 101 deals mostly with formal or informal agreements between undertakings that are intended to dominate markets. These are what most people call "cartels" but that isn't the whole story. Article 102 deals with what actually constitutes an offence in terms of manipulating a market. This is Article 102 (all of it, honestly):-

    Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.

    Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

    (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;

    (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;

    (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

    (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.


    If you are dominant in a market, and you break one of those rules, then you are committing the offence of "Abuse of Market Dominance"

    I'll pause there for a bit so anyone on the forum who has a question can ask it, and then I'll post some more.

    Regards

    Steve

  10. #160
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Thanks Steve, much appreciated. Apologies if my previous response was a bit lukewarm, this type of input is v. interesting.

    I guess the outcome is all down to interpretation.

    Paul

  11. #161
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    Thanks Steve, much appreciated. Apologies if my previous response was a bit lukewarm, this type of input is v. interesting.

    I guess the outcome is all down to interpretation.

    Paul
    Hi Paul,

    Firstly, no apology required or needed, we all have a lot invested in this issue. What I want to do here is to try and share knowledge based on fact. There is too much time spent on forums discussing points made based on wrong assumptions and information. If I can give out the correct information, then the discussion becomes properly focussed.

    I'm not picking on you (honest) but you just gave me another great 'set up' line when you said "I guess the outcome is all down to interpretation". The outcome will be down to a decision by the Competition Authority, or by a Judge, and it is very rare that either of those 'interpret' the law, they follow it very strictly. Look at those four main definitions of abuse in Article 102 and tell me if you think any of those might apply to restricting parts.

    Regards

    Steve

  12. #162
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    I`m no lawyer. Having to get my head around legal jargon gives me headache, that's why I only do it when I really have to.

    Putting it bluntly, do you think Anthony Cousins has much chance of success? That's the bottom line. Swatch Group will argue that they're doing nothing wrong by controlling/restricting the supply of parts, they'll try to convince customers that it's in their best interests!

    Paul
    Last edited by walkerwek1958; 3rd May 2017 at 10:15.

  13. #163
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    I`m no lawyer. Having to get my head around legal jargon gives me headache, that's why I only do it when I really have to.

    Putting it bluntly, do you think Anthony Cousins has much chance of success? That's the bottom line. Swatch Group will argue that they're doing nothing wrong by controlling/restricting the supply of parts, they'll try to convince customers that it's in their best interests!

    Paul
    My assessment, and that of two top law firms in London and Zurich, is that there is a very high chance of success. The law is strongly on our side. The law says that open competition is the best thing for consumers, there are very limited cases when the law allows restrictions. The issue at hand is demonstrating that this clearly isn't one, and then getting the law enforced.

    Now you have my opinion, how will you go about forming your own? I challenge you (in a nice way) to read Article 102 again. It isn't jargon, it is plain English. Read it slowly and think about the words, they are used very precisely. I need you to understand the issue, and understanding comes from education. I can steer you in the right direction, but you need to take a few minutes to digest the information. The more of us that understand, the easier it becomes to win the fight.

    Regards

    Steve

  14. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    I challenge you (in a nice way) to read Article 102 again. It isn't jargon, it is plain English. Read it slowly and think about the words, they are used very precisely.
    I've just read it, and I'm sorry to say I don't think it's such a knock-down case as you seem to think it is.

    Perhaps restricting the supply of spare parts falls under the ban on 'unfair trading conditions'. But perhaps it doesn't. No doubt both sides will argue that it is or isn't unfair, but the point is it's arguable. That's what the courts are for, of course.

  15. #165
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by bitfield View Post
    I've just read it, and I'm sorry to say I don't think it's such a knock-down case as you seem to think it is.

    Perhaps restricting the supply of spare parts falls under the ban on 'unfair trading conditions'. But perhaps it doesn't. No doubt both sides will argue that it is or isn't unfair, but the point is it's arguable. That's what the courts are for, of course.
    Hi bitfield,

    Two points for you. Firstly, I would recommend that you avoid leaning towards any conclusion so early in the discussion. It can bias your thinking down the wrong path. Stay open minded for now.

    Secondly, your thought that restricting parts supply is imposing "unfair trading conditions" is correct. You should also consider how such restrictions impact on the second definition of abuse. If there are two watch repairers in a town, and only one is supplied with spares, then the consumer has only one choice where to go. The market has been "restricted".

    Thank you for replying. Hopefully we will get some more contributions before we move on.

    Regards

    Steve

  16. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    I would recommend that you avoid leaning towards any conclusion so early in the discussion. It can bias your thinking down the wrong path. Stay open minded for now.
    I'm entirely open-minded, which is why I said there are arguments on both sides. You seem to disagree with that; are you sure you're not leaning towards an early conclusion yourself?

  17. #167
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    I sincerely hope Anthony Cousins wins, I`ve made my views clear on this issue many times.

    Repairing watches isn`t my livelihood, at my stage of life I`ve no desire to progress beyond the 'profitable hobby' situation that keeps me busy in retirement, but I sympathise strongly with those in the trade who have made a living for years and wish to continue doing so. I also sympathise with watch owners who are having to pay a premium for the parts needed to fix their watches, I never make profit from parts but I have to cover the costs of replacing my dwindling stocks.

    I've no wish to spend time reading all the legalese, understanding the legal aspects better wouldn`t help me. Unless I`m missing a trick there's nothing I can do to influence the situation; if there is please let me know!

    I`d feel more confident if similar legal challenges were ongoing in other parts of the world, the USA springs to min as a big market for Swatch Group.

    Paul

  18. #168
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Hi bitfield,

    Don't take umbrage, it wasn't a personal criticism. When posting on forums I am always mindful that the replies are read by many, and with Paul being so insistent that I give my view, I am keen to make sure that we don't get into taking sides before all the info is out there. Thank you for being one of the first to respond, always welcome. I sincerely hope that after almost three years full time working on this issue that my conclusions aren't "early"

    Paul, everyone can help. If you understand the legal arguments, then you can explain them to someone else and the word spreads. I could list a hundred reasons why there are not more lawsuits going on around the world, but the most potent ones are:-

    1. Failure to understand that the law is on our side
    2. Failure to understand the process by which the rules are enforced
    3. Mass hysteria that "the Swiss" can't be beaten


    Take the chance to pick up the knowledge and understanding that will help to protect the craft you so clearly enjoy.

    Regards

    Steve

  19. #169
    I'm all for more parts availability. Hopefully there will be a useable/positive solution/conclusion.
    It's just a matter of time...

  20. #170
    Master gerard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    1,105
    Thanks Steve for the information so far. Interesting and well presented IMHO. I look toward to more insight.
    Given much of this relies on EU legalisation one can't help but wonder how Brexit might affect this. Needless to day we have been reminded by the EU that Switzerland pay for their ability to trade and reciprocal rights, and a fair conclusion would be it includes trade and therefore such practices which affect fair trade.

  21. #171
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Hi all,

    In my earlier post I mentioned the offence of "Abuse of Market Dominance". Once again, this is pretty easy to understand.

    "Abuse" is defined in the text of Article 102, and there is no need to repeat it here.

    "Dominance" is defined as having a 30% or greater share of a market by turnover.

    "Market" has to be defined on a case by case basis within certain guidelines. The first is the applicable geographical area, and that can be across the entire EU, or specific to a country. The second has to do with the nature of the market. For example sale of new cars would be one market, sale of used cars would be a second, service and repair of cars would be a third, and sales of spare parts would be a fourth. This separation is essential to prevent abuse. Imagine if all these markets were considered to be a single market. One brand of spare parts would be a tiny percentage of the total value of the market, so each car manufacturer could not be dominant, and could therefore not be abusive. This would leave them free to restrict the supply of spares to, for example, their franchised new car dealers only. This would eliminate every independent repair outlet, stop consumers from repairing their own cars, force consumers to pay main dealer servicing and repair prices, and force independent used car dealers to also use the main dealers for servicing and repair, all of which would artificially inflate the prices consumers pay at every point along the distribution chain.

    Markets are therefore subdivided to ensure that their definition cannot be twisted to allow the end consumer to be abused. It is worth noting that in a spare parts market, there is an important test that is used to define how many markets exist. Using the car market example again, if all spare parts for every brand of car were a single market, it is highly unlikely that any one brand would hold a 30% market share, so no brand would be dominant, and by definition the situation described above could not be abusive and would be lawful. To prevent this anomaly, competition law utilises a “Substitutability” test. What this does is compare each brand of spare parts, and ask if it would be possible to affect a repair of one brand of product using the parts from another. So using the car example, if it were possible to repair a Lada with Rolls Royce spares, then they are one market. If not, they are two separate markets. The lack of “Substitutability” between brands of spare parts means that in almost every instance they are individual markets, and as the only source of original spare parts is the brand themselves, they are clearly 100% market dominant. This is why car spares are freely and openly available from multiple competing outlets to anyone who wishes to purchase them.

    It is not possible to have "Abuse" unless "Market Dominance" is proved first, but in the watch repair world, the EU Court has already made that definition back in 2010. Those of you that have been following this issue for many years will remember that CEAHR complained about parts restrictions to the EU Commission who spent four years investigating only to rule in 2008 that as parts were a tiny fraction of the watch market, there was no "Market Dominance ", so no "Abuse". CEAHR appealed the findings to the EU Court who pointed out that EU law requires that parts be separated out as one market, and promptly annulled the entire investigation. The Court went further and hoisted the Swiss with their own evidence. They noted that the Swiss had insisted that customers want original spare parts used on their watches, so the court said that as there was no substitutability between the brands of parts, and the only place you can get original parts is from the brand, then each brand is a market by itself, and that brand is 100% market dominant.

    Does anyone want to ask/comment about this?

    Regards

    Steve

  22. #172
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by gerard View Post
    Thanks Steve for the information so far. Interesting and well presented IMHO. I look toward to more insight.
    Given much of this relies on EU legalisation one can't help but wonder how Brexit might affect this. Needless to day we have been reminded by the EU that Switzerland pay for their ability to trade and reciprocal rights, and a fair conclusion would be it includes trade and therefore such practices which affect fair trade.
    Hi Gerard,

    I wondered when Brexit would pop up. The short answer is it won't affect the law for a number of reasons.

    Firstly, the law that applies in a case is the law that was in force when the alleged offence was committed, so as parts supply stopped before Brexit, it is EU Law (which is exactly the same as British Law).

    Secondly, the Swiss/EU trade agreement says EU Competition Law applies to all trade.

    Thirdly, most international competition law is very similar, and for good reason.

    I can not see the laws being changed when Brexit happens, they are well written. What we might see is a bit more vigour in the way they are enforced.

    Regards

    Steve

  23. #173
    Master gerard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    1,105
    Thanks Steve. I suspected as much and really hope we don't try reinventing the wheel so to speak.

  24. #174
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    675
    It's still a shame this legal issue is being piloted by Anthony Cousins . His business practises give an impression and one can only draw conclusions as to his stance if the shoe was on the other foot .

  25. #175
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Hi bitfield,

    Don't take umbrage, it wasn't a personal criticism. When posting on forums I am always mindful that the replies are read by many, and with Paul being so insistent that I give my view, I am keen to make sure that we don't get into taking sides before all the info is out there. Thank you for being one of the first to respond, always welcome. I sincerely hope that after almost three years full time working on this issue that my conclusions aren't "early"

    Paul, everyone can help. If you understand the legal arguments, then you can explain them to someone else and the word spreads. I could list a hundred reasons why there are not more lawsuits going on around the world, but the most potent ones are:-

    1. Failure to understand that the law is on our side
    2. Failure to understand the process by which the rules are enforced
    3. Mass hysteria that "the Swiss" can't be beaten


    Take the chance to pick up the knowledge and understanding that will help to protect the craft you so clearly enjoy.

    Regards

    Steve
    Actually the main reason there arnt more lawsuits is funding and the relevance of ' Zero Sum game'

    It's a bit like buying watch parts from a well known supplier , finding they are faulty and being told you are unable to return them . So you put it down to experience and move on and buy elsewhere .


    Most do not attract legal aid and many become a gravy train for teams of lawyers and paralegals .

    I guess if you can develop a fund from third parties to fund your cause it's a win win situation .
    Last edited by Tomaitch; 4th May 2017 at 16:12.

  26. #176
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Hi Tomaitch,

    I said at the start that I am not going to get drawn into discussing the day to day business at Cousins. If you have an issue then email Anthony, his contact details are on the website. I can assure you that the mail goes straight to him and is not filtered by anyone else. What I will say is that he is the only person in the world with the guts to fight for you, so you might want to moderate your rhetoric and show some support. I'm also none too impressed by your remarks about lawyers, they have a positive role to play in this also. What we need is a positive, cooperative approach with some appreciation for the effort that is going in, not knocks and put downs from the very people we are trying to help. Could you please try that as an approach.

    There are a number of ways to try and get Competition Law enforced. In my experience, none of the Trade Associations ever bothered to even understand the law and the process, let alone stand up properly for the rights of the independent repair trade. Going to the Courts would not have been necessary if they had done things the right way, but a straight legal fight is about the only option left now.

    I like your idea of a third party fund to cover that cost. When are you setting it up and how can I contribute?


    Regards

    Steve

  27. #177
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Hi Tomaitch,

    I said at the start that I am not going to get drawn into discussing the day to day business at Cousins. If you have an issue then email Anthony, his contact details are on the website. I can assure you that the mail goes straight to him and is not filtered by anyone else. What I will say is that he is the only person in the world with the guts to fight for you, so you might want to moderate your rhetoric and show some support. I'm also none too impressed by your remarks about lawyers, they have a positive role to play in this also. What we need is a positive, cooperative approach with some appreciation for the effort that is going in, not knocks and put downs from the very people we are trying to help. Could you please try that as an approach.

    There are a number of ways to try and get Competition Law enforced. In my experience, none of the Trade Associations ever bothered to even understand the law and the process, let alone stand up properly for the rights of the independent repair trade. Going to the Courts would not have been necessary if they had done things the right way, but a straight legal fight is about the only option left now.

    I like your idea of a third party fund to cover that cost. When are you setting it up and how can I contribute?


    Regards

    Steve
    Firstly I appreciate you are not going to be drawn into discussing day to day practises at Cousins , I wouldnt expect you too as you are not an employee or a representative of the company .
    Secondly I applaud your conviction and support to this cause , this has to be said . As it is a legal matter may I ask what legal background you come from ?
    Thirdly , I feel it a fair comment that with the experiences of other customers noted on this forum and others one naturally questions the overall driving force behind the action .
    Lasty as far as the fund goes wasnt there contributions from the Watchmaker community to help fight this at the start ? That was my point.

  28. #178
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomaitch View Post
    Firstly I appreciate you are not going to be drawn into discussing day to day practises at Cousins , I wouldnt expect you too as you are not an employee or a representative of the company .
    Secondly I applaud your conviction and support to this cause , this has to be said . As it is a legal matter may I ask what legal background you come from ?
    Thirdly , I feel it a fair comment that with the experiences of other customers noted on this forum and others one naturally questions the overall driving force behind the action .
    Lasty as far as the fund goes wasnt there contributions from the Watchmaker community to help fight this at the start ? That was my point.
    Thank you for the compliment. Much appreciated.

    To answer your questions:-

    I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there may be something in the DNA because my son is. My knowledge of Competition Law and this issue comes from frequent consultations with some of the best Competition Lawyers in the UK and Switzerland, and three years of studying, reading, researching and writing, particularly in preparing evidence and arguments for the courts and other bodies.

    I can't stop you or anyone else from speculating about Cousins motives for fighting this case. I can tell you that by a long way the principle driver is their wish to see the law stuck to, and to help their loyal customer base to stay in business. If you think that there is some sort of underhand motive to gain a market advantage, then one simple point shows this can not be the case. If Cousins wins resupply, then the precedent is set, and every other wholesaler will have no difficulty in also obtaining supply. Just to back that up, bear in mind that any form of exclusive arrangement that allowed one company to exploit the market would be an abuse of market dominance, and we could hardly plead ignorance as a defence to that......

    The Industry Action Fund did its job by putting together the initial arguments and evidence and presenting them to the Department of Business, Skills and Innovation, who in turn referred us on to the Competition and Markets Authority. We stopped collecting money once Cousins decided to take on Swatch in the Courts because this was a more effective form of action. You can read all about that on the British Watch and Clockmakers Guild website.

    Regards

    Steve

  29. #179
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,697
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomaitch View Post
    It's still a shame this legal issue is being piloted by Anthony Cousins . His business practises give an impression and one can only draw conclusions as to his stance if the shoe was on the other foot .

    Couldn't agree more. Cousins' trading practices have been called into question several times on here, rightfully so, and now when the shoe's on the other foot they're crying foul play.

    Whilst I feel for the genuine watch repairers who were getting parts from them, as far as Cousins themselves are concerned - slap it up them.

    Maybe we could set up a fund to employ lawyers to question why Cousins are circumventing the EU distance selling regulations?

  30. #180
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Quote Originally Posted by demonloop View Post

    Maybe we could set up a fund to employ lawyers to question why Cousins are circumventing the EU distance selling regulations?
    Stupid statement. Cousins do leave a lot to be desired at times, but this is a daft thing to suggest.

    Paul

  31. #181
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by demonloop View Post
    Couldn't agree more. Cousins' trading practices have been called into question several times on here, rightfully so, and now when the shoe's on the other foot they're crying foul play.

    Whilst I feel for the genuine watch repairers who were getting parts from them, as far as Cousins themselves are concerned - slap it up them.

    Maybe we could set up a fund to employ lawyers to question why Cousins are circumventing the EU distance selling regulations?

    Dear demonloop,

    I am trying to talk about points of competition law, you on the other hand are raising issues of distance selling regulation. You also seem to be quite keen on making potentially libellous statements also. Can we please knock this diversion on the head once and for all by me pointing out the following:-

    The distance selling regulations are there to protect consumers making retail purchases. Cousins is a business to business wholesaler that provides goods at trade prices to trade customers who then place a mark up on those items before retailing them to the end consumer. If you require the protection of the distance selling regulations, then you need to do business with a retail outlet and pay the higher prices that deliver the profits needed by retailers to cover the costs of the voluminous restocking of items that the distance selling regulations generate.

    If you are a genuine legitimate trader who carries business insurance, pays business rates on their premises, and all the relevant taxes and NI on your earnings, then Cousins is an appropriate supplier for you. If you are not a legitimate trader, then you should not be buying from Cousins. Indeed, I would go further and remind all forum members that Cousins requires all its customers to make a declaration that they are legitimate traders, and that they accept that transactions are under the business to business regulations, before they will sell anything to them. If you are not a legitimate trader, and you did make such a declaration, I'm no criminal lawyer but that sounds to me very much like such an action might fall foul of "Obtaining Goods by Deception".

    Now, could those of you out there who are genuinely interested in knowing about Competition Law, this case, and why Cousins is confident enough of its position to take matters to the courts, be kind enough to respond to this thread and let me know that you are reading my input. If no one really wants to know what the situation is, they only want to bitch and make snide comments from an anonymous route, then I am wasting my time writing and replying.

    Many thanks


    Steve

  32. #182
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Dear demonloop,

    I am trying to talk about points of competition law, you on the other hand are raising issues of distance selling regulation. You also seem to be quite keen on making potentially libellous statements also. Can we please knock this diversion on the head once and for all by me pointing out the following:-

    The distance selling regulations are there to protect consumers making retail purchases. Cousins is a business to business wholesaler that provides goods at trade prices to trade customers who then place a mark up on those items before retailing them to the end consumer. If you require the protection of the distance selling regulations, then you need to do business with a retail outlet and pay the higher prices that deliver the profits needed by retailers to cover the costs of the voluminous restocking of items that the distance selling regulations generate.

    If you are a genuine legitimate trader who carries business insurance, pays business rates on their premises, and all the relevant taxes and NI on your earnings, then Cousins is an appropriate supplier for you. If you are not a legitimate trader, then you should not be buying from Cousins. Indeed, I would go further and remind all forum members that Cousins requires all its customers to make a declaration that they are legitimate traders, and that they accept that transactions are under the business to business regulations, before they will sell anything to them. If you are not a legitimate trader, and you did make such a declaration, I'm no criminal lawyer but that sounds to me very much like such an action might fall foul of "Obtaining Goods by Deception".

    Now, could those of you out there who are genuinely interested in knowing about Competition Law, this case, and why Cousins is confident enough of its position to take matters to the courts, be kind enough to respond to this thread and let me know that you are reading my input. If no one really wants to know what the situation is, they only want to bitch and make snide comments from an anonymous route, then I am wasting my time writing and replying.

    Many thanks


    Steve

    Obtaining goods by deception ,,,,,, Hilarious !! This wouldn t be a criminal matter nor would it have any merit in a civil case .
    I am gobsmacked you would make such a statement but then maybe I am not surprised .
    Good luck with your law books .

  33. #183
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,697
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Dear demonloop,

    I am trying to talk about points of competition law, you on the other hand are raising issues of distance selling regulation. You also seem to be quite keen on making potentially libellous statements also. Can we please knock this diversion on the head once and for all by me pointing out the following:-
    I'll choose to discuss whatever I wish, at Eddie's forbearance.

    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post

    If you are a genuine legitimate trader who carries business insurance, pays business rates on their premises, and all the relevant taxes and NI on your earnings, then Cousins is an appropriate supplier for you. If you are not a legitimate trader, then you should not be buying from Cousins. Indeed, I would go further and remind all forum members that Cousins requires all its customers to make a declaration that they are legitimate traders, and that they accept that transactions are under the business to business regulations, before they will sell anything to them. If you are not a legitimate trader, and you did make such a declaration, I'm no criminal lawyer but that sounds to me very much like such an action might fall foul of "Obtaining Goods by Deception".
    There's going to be a fair few members on here that will be expecting a knock on the door from PC Plod then.

  34. #184
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomaitch View Post
    Obtaining goods by deception ,,,,,, Hilarious !! This wouldn t be a criminal matter nor would it have any merit in a civil case .
    I am gobsmacked you would make such a statement but then maybe I am not surprised .
    Good luck with your law books .
    Dead right, Tomaitch. It's the same sort of worthless "barrack room lawyering" as setting up a fund to investigate non existent circumventing of distance selling regulations....

    Get my point?

    Now do you want my input on competition law and this case, or just a forum full of social bitching and rudeness?

    Your call.

  35. #185
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,697
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    Stupid statement. Cousins do leave a lot to be desired at times, but this is a daft thing to suggest.

    Paul
    Paul, my post was tongue in cheek - I should have made that clear and I have every sympathy with you and your like, who are making a living (or a pass time) and need the spare parts. I completely get that.

    In principle I would support the action Cousins are taking, and if they had glowing customer reviews on here I would stand behind them 100%

    The reality is that Cousins are far, far from perfect - it only takes a quick search here to show that, and as you said yourself.

    With that in mind, I don't feel particularly charitable towards them when they get, what I would view, as some of their own medicine.

  36. #186
    Grand Master Dave+63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    15,914
    Well I can't speak for anyone else but I'm interested to hear all sides of the argument and particularly the relevant aspects of the law.

    If it can be put into layman's terms such that my dysfunctional brain can understand then so much the better.

    It is in the interest of everyone who owns a moderately valuable watch to have a free supply of parts to maintain them.

    I do wonder how Rolex seem to get away with it if Swatch group do lose though.

  37. #187
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Deal with Cousins and you have to do so on their terms, they make that clear, and their customer relations attitude does leave a lot to be desired. However, without them a lot of us would struggle. Thesedays I deal with Gleaves primarily, but I still use Cousins for sometimes. Their website is a mine of useful information too, despite it's idiosyncrasies it's an excellent resource.

    Love him or loathe him, Anthony Cousins is to be admired for leading the fight against Swatch Group. I don`t doubt that his own self-interest is a significant motivator, it would be naïve to think otherwise, and I think it's in most people's better interests that he's successful.

    Swatch Group don`t need to restrict parts supply, they could deal in the same way that LMVH do by supplying parts directly to bona fide repairers and genuine trade customers.


    Paul

  38. #188
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    Deal with Cousins and you have to do so on their terms, they make that clear, and their customer relations attitude does leave a lot to be desired. However, without them a lot of us would struggle. Thesedays I deal with Gleaves primarily, but I still use Cousins for sometimes. Their website is a mine of useful information too, despite it's idiosyncrasies it's an excellent resource.

    Love him or loathe him, Anthony Cousins is to be admired for leading the fight against Swatch Group. I don`t doubt that his own self-interest is a significant motivator, it would be naïve to think otherwise, and I think it's in most people's better interests that he's successful.

    Swatch Group don`t need to restrict parts supply, they could deal in the same way that LMVH do by supplying parts directly to bona fide repairers and genuine trade customers.


    Paul
    Ok so if Cousins are successful will that open the floodgates for people to set up online shops selling Swatch brand watch parts ? I very much doubt it.
    I totally agree though to allow watchmakers to be supplied the parts would be the way forward , not to online middlemen to up the price by 150% and pretend to be doing everybody a favour..

  39. #189
    Grand Master markrlondon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    25,353
    Blog Entries
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by demonloop View Post
    In principle I would support the action Cousins are taking, and if they had glowing customer reviews on here I would stand behind them 100%
    Quite frankly we should be 100% behind them on this competition issue anyway.

    The bickering about Cousins business choices is an entirely different matter and has been discussed plenty in other threads. It just isn't relevant here, no matter how strongly people feel about it.

    Cousins are doing something that will benefit us all if they are successful so we should put any other issues aside and support them fully without bickering about it here.

    Let's focus on the bigger picture for the time being.





    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    Deal with Cousins and you have to do so on their terms, they make that clear, and their customer relations attitude does leave a lot to be desired. However, without them a lot of us would struggle. Thesedays I deal with Gleaves primarily, but I still use Cousins for sometimes. Their website is a mine of useful information too, despite it's idiosyncrasies it's an excellent resource.

    Love him or loathe him, Anthony Cousins is to be admired for leading the fight against Swatch Group. I don`t doubt that his own self-interest is a significant motivator, it would be naïve to think otherwise, and I think it's in most people's better interests that he's successful.

    Swatch Group don`t need to restrict parts supply, they could deal in the same way that LMVH do by supplying parts directly to bona fide repairers and genuine trade customers.
    Well said.

  40. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Now do you want my input on competition law and this case, or just a forum full of social bitching and rudeness?
    "Do you kids just want to squabble and waste time, or do you want to be like the real United Nations?"

  41. #191
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    3,126
    I too share the concerns about Cousins business practices and would contend that it is relevant to whether as suggested above we should trust them to act in any other way than totally selfishly and therefore deserve support. I love the threatening legal slap down from Rumpole above (no not you Mark) but the fact remains that Cousins have generated a great deal of mistrust during recent times with perceived price gouging on remaining Swatch parts and of course their attitude towards faulty goods, lost in post etc. I don't accept that supplying the trade excuses all this. I will say no more but these concerns are real and widely held.
    Last edited by Padders; 5th May 2017 at 17:12.

  42. #192
    If anyone is looking for an angel to take on Swatch then they are in for a long wait, though I doubt an angel would be suitably equipped.
    Maybe Cousins would be better off only supplying those who understand the difference between a shop and a trade counter.

  43. #193
    Grand Master markrlondon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    25,353
    Blog Entries
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by forpetesake View Post
    If anyone is looking for an angel to take on Swatch then they are in for a long wait, though I doubt an angel would be suitably equipped.
    Indeed, a good point.





    As an aside....

    Quote Originally Posted by forpetesake View Post
    Maybe Cousins would be better off only supplying those who understand the difference between a shop and a trade counter.
    I think that's exactly what they do, or try to. They do the very same to ensure that they are dealing with genuine business customers as all the other trade/wholesale suppliers I've dealt with (IT trade-only distributors in my case).

    For what it's worth, I think that the real issues with Cousins are to do with customer service (which applies to business and trade customers as much as consumers) rather than anything about adherence to particular legislation.

    But that's just my view and I'm not going to discuss it in this thread.

  44. #194
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    So does anyone have any questions or comments about the definition of "Abuse of Market Dominance" from 21 posts ago in this thread? If not I will try and add some more info over the weekend.

    Regards

    Steve

  45. #195
    Master alfat33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,198
    Steve, I can see how Swatch could be forced to supply multiple wholesalers or watchmakers with parts, but not how they could be forced to charge a 'reasonable' price.

    I worked once for a company with Market Dominance and prices for some products were set by a regulator. But what would be the equivalent here or would it work a different way?

  46. #196
    Grand Master markrlondon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    25,353
    Blog Entries
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    So does anyone have any questions or comments about the definition of "Abuse of Market Dominance" from 21 posts ago in this thread? If not I will try and add some more info over the weekend.
    Just quoting here for reference:-

    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    UK and European Competition Law is written in Articles 101 and 102 of the EU constitution. They are very brief and well written laws. Article 101 deals mostly with formal or informal agreements between undertakings that are intended to dominate markets. These are what most people call "cartels" but that isn't the whole story. Article 102 deals with what actually constitutes an offence in terms of manipulating a market. This is Article 102 (all of it, honestly):-

    Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.

    Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

    (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;

    (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;

    (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

    (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.


    If you are dominant in a market, and you break one of those rules, then you are committing the offence of "Abuse of Market Dominance"
    A couple of comments and questions:-

    (1) "in so far as it may affect trade between Member States". I've read similar qualifications in other EU legislation and I'm never entirely sure what it means. Is it intended to limit applicability of the prohibition only to where it affects trade between member states? If so, it seems to be very limited as, for example, the issue at hand seems to me to be likely to harm businesses and consumers almost entirely within individual member states, i.e. inter-member state trade need not be affected. Or am I over-analysing it or misunderstanding the phrase's intended meaning? It's wording that clearly means something to someone but its real intention is not clear to me.

    (2) I note that clause (b) is very promising in our context. Consumers will be prejudiced in terms of their freedom of choice being artificially limited and prices artificially being pushed up.

    (3) But wait, will consumers really be prejudiced in our context? Well, many of us here think so (and rightly so in my opinion), but I can see that opposing lawyers might try to argue otherwise. They might claim that consumers would experience greater quality (not that I think this would actually be necessarily true), ignoring the loss of competition in service provider and price.

    (4) Last but not least, everything turns on the phrase "a dominant position within the internal market". Where is "dominant position" defined? Apologies if I have carelessly missed it.
    Last edited by markrlondon; 5th May 2017 at 23:33. Reason: Fixed typo

  47. #197
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by markrlondon View Post
    Just quoting here for reference:-



    A couple of comments and questions:-

    (1) "in so far as it may affect trade between Member States". I've read similar qualifications in other EU legislation and I'm never entirely sure what it means. Is it intended to limit applicability of the prohibition only to where it affects trade between member states? If so, it seems to be very limited as, for example, the issue at hand seems to me to be likely to harm businesses and consumers almost entirely within individual member states, i.e. inter-member state trade need not be affected. Or am I over-analysing it or misunderstand the phrase's intended meaning? It's wording that clearly means something to someone but it's real intention is not clear to me.

    (2) I note that clause (b) is very promising in our context. Consumers will be prejudiced in terms of their freedom of choice being artificially limited and prices artificially being pushed up.

    (3) But wait, will consumers really be prejudiced in our context? Well, many of us here think so (and rightly so in my opinion), but I can see that opposing layers might try to argue otherwise. They might claim that consumers would experience greater quality (not that I think this would actually be necessarily true), ignoring the loss of competition in service provider and price.

    (4) Last but not least, everything turns on the phrase "a dominant position within the internal market". Where is "dominant position" defined? Apologies if I have carelessly missed it.

    Good questions Mark. Answers as follows:-

    (1) The phrase "in so far as it may affect trade between Member States" is correct if you think about the role the EU plays. It would have no interest in anything that affected just one member, because that members own laws would deal with the problem. Also keep in mind that the trade agreement between the EU and Switzerland says the EU rules apply, so as far as competition law is concerned we can regard Switzerland as being a quasi member.

    (2) Not just consumers. Anyone wanting to come in to the market as a repairer is being prevented from doing so. I'm surprised no one has picked up on point 3. Supplying some repairers but not others is exactly what that wording means.

    (3) The law is clear that quality for the customer comes from competition, not restriction. Justifying a restrictive practice by making a presumption that an independent repairer would do a worse job is nonsense. It would be akin to sentencing someone to life in jail because they might commit a murder, not because they have. Besides which, there is loads of legislation and mechanisms to allow a consumer to obtain redress if a repair is done badly. Controlling the situation in advance is not required.

    (4) You did miss it, go back and read post no. 171 in this thread from 09.32 yesterday. The EU Court has already defined each brand as 100% Market Dominant for spare parts.

  48. #198
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Let me add to my last post by reminding you all that these laws deal with market dominant undertakings, who are in a position to control entire markets, and abuse consumers if they wish. Most people have a mental map based around small businesses who have no such power. When you think about all these points we are discussing, make sure that you appreciate the need to consider them from the perspective of stopping unfair competition.

    Regards

    Steve

  49. #199
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by alfat33 View Post
    Steve, I can see how Swatch could be forced to supply multiple wholesalers or watchmakers with parts, but not how they could be forced to charge a 'reasonable' price.

    I worked once for a company with Market Dominance and prices for some products were set by a regulator. But what would be the equivalent here or would it work a different way?
    Hi alfat33,

    Spot on. If someone being supplied were to think that the prices were not "reasonable", then they would bring the matter to the attention of the regulator, who would rule if the pricing was abusive or not. If it was, a class action lawsuit would be the way to get recompense, but I doubt that would be needed.

    Regards

    Steve

  50. #200
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,697
    Thinking further down the road here but if Cousins win the action, and Swatch have to supply parts to a supplier network, who would choose that network and how would it work?

    Would they pick one or two or several wholesalers per region? Could be an opportunity for someone and maybe get the wholesale prices down.

    When a monopoly is broken it generally leads to cheaper prices for end users.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information