closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 410

Thread: Cousins taking on Swatch Group

  1. #201
    Master alfat33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,198
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    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
    Thanks Steve, but who is the regulator for the price of watch parts? And if there is one, why haven't they already taken action?

  2. #202
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by demonloop View Post
    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.
    A dominant undertaking would be obliged to offer the same terms to equivalent outlets, so if two wholesalers both commit to buying the same quantity of spares in the same time period, they would have to be supplied at the same price. Obviously those buying more can expect to get some additional discounts, but the same deal must be offered to anyone who makes the same commitments.

    Increased competition does indeed usually lead to lower prices. The wholesale business is all about holding an extensive range of products, and being able to deliver them efficiently to the customer. It is always a balance between tying up money keeping the shelves fully stocked, versus the risk of losing sales if you run out, all of which has to be supported by a very efficient order, handling and fulfilment service. Wholesalers will need to raise their game.

  3. #203
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by alfat33 View Post
    Thanks Steve, but who is the regulator for the price of watch parts? And if there is one, why haven't they already taken action?
    This all comes back to that good old word "reasonable". If the companies buying the parts from the brands think the prices are not reasonable, in the first instance they would be expected to discuss matters with the brands and negotiate an appropriate level. If that failed, then they could try issuing a complaint to (in the UK) the Competition and Markets Authority, and ask them to investigate and rule, or alternatively they could ask the courts to give a ruling on the issue.

    As to why the CMA hasn't already acted, well firstly there are no parts being sold, so the issue is supply, rather than price. Secondly, CEAHR are trying to get the European Commission to rule on parts availability, so if there is a Europe wide investigation going on, the national regulators are not allowed to duplicate that work. But there is more on this issue to come ..........

  4. #204
    Master alfat33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,198
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    This all comes back to that good old word "reasonable". If the companies buying the parts from the brands think the prices are not reasonable, in the first instance they would be expected to discuss matters with the brands and negotiate an appropriate level. If that failed, then they could try issuing a complaint to (in the UK) the Competition and Markets Authority, and ask them to investigate and rule, or alternatively they could ask the courts to give a ruling on the issue.

    As to why the CMA hasn't already acted, well firstly there are no parts being sold, so the issue is supply, rather than price. Secondly, CEAHR are trying to get the European Commission to rule on parts availability, so if there is a Europe wide investigation going on, the national regulators are not allowed to duplicate that work. But there is more on this issue to come ..........
    Thanks. From what I've now read, the CMA can take action over refusal to supply, so they could have already got involved. One interpretation is that they don't think there is a case. Or they might not be very good - they are quite new after all. What do you think?

  5. #205
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    5,622
    Fascinating thread. It does seem that, to the letter of the law and if judgement is made impartially, this case is only there to be lost by those arguing for more competition. The defence will effectively have to twist details in a way that any fair minded individual should be able to clearly see through.

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

  6. #206
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by alfat33 View Post
    Thanks. From what I've now read, the CMA can take action over refusal to supply, so they could have already got involved. One interpretation is that they don't think there is a case. Or they might not be very good - they are quite new after all. What do you think?
    Hi alfat33,

    You are on the right road to understanding this situation, but you just slipped off down the wrong fork.

    You have made an assumption that the CMA know about this matter and have been asked to act. You also (not surprisingly) wouldn't know what the process is by which a regulator gets involved, and when they are not permitted to. I'll give more about all that shortly, but do keep going, you are grasping the issue well.

    Regards

    Steve

  7. #207
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by stefmcd View Post
    Fascinating thread. It does seem that, to the letter of the law and if judgement is made impartially, this case is only there to be lost by those arguing for more competition. The defence will effectively have to twist details in a way that any fair minded individual should be able to clearly see through.

    Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk
    Hi Stefmcd,

    Glad that you find this interesting, I'm hoping that it is educational as well.

    You are quite right. Those on the side of open competition do very much have the law on their side, if, that is, they understand it. Can I suggest that you avoid using the words defence, or plaintiff, or prosecution and such like for the time being, as things take a twist shortly in this story. Stick to those operating restrictive practices, and those opposing restrictive practices for now.

    I will post some more later this afternoon.

    Regards

    Steve

  8. #208
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Hi all,

    So having established that EU and British law are on our side, the question has been posed as to why the regulator has not acted. Well the UK regulator hasn't, but the Spanish one did. Below is the text of an article I wrote for the British Watch and Clockmakers Guild magazine some 14 months ago. The contact email address is now defunct, but the story will fill in a load more blanks for you. Remember, this was written before Cousins had decided to take its own action.



    No One Expected A Spanish Inquisition!

    by Steve Domb, Industry Action Fund Project Manager


    Forgive the comedy headline, but as someone who grew up in the Monty Python era, there was no way I could pass up this chance to pay my respects. However, this is a serious article that clearly demonstrates why, if you are a Guild Member, it pays you to invest a few pounds every year from your profits to ensure there are proper resources available to help protect your business. In my role as IAF Project Manager, I end up in regular contact with people in the UK, Europe, and all around the World who are facing the same issue on parts supply as we are. Listening to what they have been telling me, it has become ever clearer that people have pieces of information and analysis that on their own don’t lead anywhere. However, if I double check stories to carefully filter out any red herrings, and piece the bits of the puzzle together, quite often remarkable results emerge. This is a prime example.

    On the 29th July 2014, the EU Commission released its second set of findings into the complaint by CEAHR that the Swiss Watch companies had engaged in anticompetitive agreements, and were abusing a position of market dominance. For the second time, the Commission concluded that this was too small a matter for it to investigate, that each country’s National Competition Authority (NCA) was better placed to investigate, and that whilst it did not make any findings on whether or not the Swiss were breaking the rules, it felt that there was a low likelihood of an infringement of the competition law rules. All this was in the documentation that the EU Commission released, and I used this as source material for a seven page paper that I wrote at the end of 2014 to give a layman’s guide to the background of the current second appeal in the EU Court brought by CEAHR against the EU Commission.

    In that paper, as part of an explanation to demonstrate how the EU Commission takes precedence over the NCAs, and how NCAs are unable to investigate a matter if there is a current investigation being done by the EU Commission, I made reference to a quote from the Commission regarding an investigation by the Spanish NCA that had been stopped by the Commission in 2011 when it began its second inquiry. The phrase used was “The initiation of proceedings by the Commission relieved the Spanish NCA of its competence to apply EU antitrust rules to this case.”.

    At the end of 2014, with everything else that was going on, I didn’t realise the significance of this statement, but the understanding that I have gained over the last few months from having the time to study documents, talk to other people in the Industry, and cross check information with different sources, has changed all that. With regard to the Spanish case, I am particularly grateful to Andre Fluery, who along with his son operates a watch repair business on the West Coast of the USA, and who took on Cartier in America over parts supply some years ago. On his advice, I went looking for more information. The good news was I found two documents published by the Spanish NCA. The bad news was they were both in Spanish, and I did French at school.

    Google Translate is a double edged sword, particularly when dealing with legal documents. It gave me a very rough translation, but there was enough that was intelligible to suggest that on the 12th of April 2011 the Spanish NCA had ruled that almost all the major Swiss watch companies had been found to have infringed Spanish and European Law, by refusing or preventing the supply of spare parts for watches. Could it be that a European NCA had beaten the Commission to the punch? How had they been able to investigate this when there was a current EU investigation taking place? Mostly, how come the Spanish watchmakers still were not getting any parts? After discussion with the IAF Management Team, we decided to pay out a few hundred pounds to get the two documents converted into English by a properly accredited legal translation service. A few days later, we were able to piece the whole story together.

    In July 2008, the EU Commission finished its first investigation of the 2004 complaint by CEAHR. A month or so later, CEAHR lodged an appeal at the EU Court against the Commission’s findings. Independently from this, in or around the start of 2009, a Spanish watchmaker lodged a complaint with the Spanish NCA against a number of Swiss companies, regarding their refusal to supply him with spares. The Investigations Directorate of the Spanish NCA set to work, and on the 14th April 2010 they instituted penalty proceedings against 39 manufacturers and distributors for breach of Spanish and EU competition law.

    In December of 2010, the EU Court, having found a “manifest error” in the way the Commission assessed the market, found in favour of CEAHR and overturned the Commission’s decision. This left the EU situation in limbo as the Commission worked out what it was going to do next. Meanwhile, back in Spain the Investigations Directorate were still hard at work, and on the 11th February 2011 they decided to include another 4 companies into the penalty proceedings. On the 12th April 2011, the proceedings ended and the Investigations Directorate issued a “Proposed Resolution” to the Council of the Spanish NCA in which they declared that breaches of Spanish and EU competition law had been found in the actions of (take a deep breath….)

    Sowind S.A., Breitling Montres S.A., Cronomar S.A., Cartier S.A., Baume & Mercier S.A, IWC International Watch Co. AG, Manufacture Jaeger-Le Coultre S.A., Piaget S.A., Vacheron & Constantin S.A., Officine Panerai Marketing e Communicazione SrL and Richemont Iberia S.A., LVMH Swiss Manufactures S.A., Les Ateliers Horlogers Dior S.A., Hublot S.A., LVMH Relojería y Joyería España S.A., Diarsa Alta Relojería Importación S.A., Patek Philippe S.A. and Patek Philippe España S.L., Rolex S.A., Montres Tudor S.A., Rolex España S.A., Montres Breguet S.A., Blancpain Ltd., Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH, Montres Jaquet Droz Ltd., Léon Hatot Ltd., Omega Ltd., Longines Watch Co., Francillon Ltd., The Swatch Group (Europa), Sociedade Unipessoal S.A., Bulgari S.p.A., Bulgari Time (Suiza) S.A., Daniel Roth et Gérald Genta Haute Horlogerie S.A., Bulgari Global Operations S.A., Bulgari España S.A., Eberhard&Co S.A., Luxury Timepieces International S.A., and Distribuidora Internacional de Alta Relojería S.A. (but not by Oris S.A., Boucheron S.A.S. and Rado Watch Co. Ltd.).

    … and that sanctions proceedings should be commenced against those who have infringed the law.

    This whole investigation and ruling had been going on at the same time as the EU Court had been deliberating on the CEAHR appeal against the EU Commission’s findings. As I wrote earlier, NCAs are not allowed to start investigations if the EU Commission are already working on the same thing, so the first conundrum for us was to work out how had the Spanish NCA been able to do all this? The answer was provided when a lawyer acting for Richemont lodged an appeal with the Council of the Spanish NCA on the 11th May 2011 asking it to overturn the findings of the Investigation Directorate and halt the sanctions proceedings. The grounds for the appeal were that Richemont (and others) were the subject of a current EU investigation, so the Spanish NCA had no right to investigate in parallel, and that because the EU Commission were now going to have to start a new investigation, Richemont and the rest were going to incur extra costs fighting on two fronts at the same time, and their case would suffer as they would have to split their resources two ways.

    The results of the appeal came on the 30th June 2011, and were interesting to say the least. The Spanish pointed out that an investigation by the EU Commission ends when it delivers its findings. The fact that those findings are being challenged in the EU Court does not mean that the investigation has been reopened. As the NCA had conducted its investigation after the EU Commission had released its findings, it was entirely within its rights to do so. In regard to Richemonts’ claims about having to fight two actions at the same time, the Spanish said that the EU Commission had still not announced what it was going to do as a result of having lost to CEAHR on appeal, so any suggestion that the Commission would have to start a new investigation was theoretical, not factual. The Spanish NCA rejected the appeal, and Richemont (and others) lost again.

    So why is it that Spanish watchmakers still don’t have open access to spare parts from all the brands? This is where our story takes a rather odd turn. Having taken four years on its original investigation, and then spent 7 months seemingly sitting on its hands (having been told by the EU Court that it hadn’t done its job properly), a mere 9 days after the Spanish throw out the appeal by Richemont, the EU Commission sends a letter to the Spanish NCA telling them it is about to start a new investigation, and asking for their comments. The Spanish replied to the Commission 12 days after that, and less than two weeks later, the Commission informed the Spanish NCA that they had started a new investigation, which legally obliged the Spanish to stop what they were doing days before they could decide what penalties they were going to impose. On the 5th of August 2011, the EU Commission made a public announcement about the new investigation. On the same day, the Spanish NCA got a letter from Cartier requesting a suspension of the Spanish proceedings, and that was followed up 6 days later by similar requests from other companies. The Spanish NCA had no option other than to terminate its proceedings. I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to what (or who) prompted this sudden burst of activity at the EU Commission.

    That might have proved to be the frustrating end of the story, but don’t start crying into your beer just yet.

    Three years on from all this, the EU Commission released the findings of its second investigation. One of its conclusions was once again “the Commission considers that there is limited likelihood of finding an infringement pursuant to Article 102 TFEU in this case” (Article 102 covers the Abuse of Market Dominance). Three things were puzzling me. Firstly, how on earth could the EU Commission make such a claim when an investigation by the Spanish NCA had found exactly such abuse? Secondly, why were CEAHR not highlighting this point, as from my perspective, it validated their entire case? Thirdly, the EU Commission had released its second set of findings on the 29th of July 2014, so with no current investigation running, why haven’t the Spanish NCA reopened their proceedings, and finished the job off?

    When we asked CEAHR about all this, it seems that they were unaware of the Spanish case. Like me, they hadn’t realised the significance of the remark about it in the second EU Commission findings. Furthermore, the Spanish equivalent of the Guild hadn’t joined CEAHR until 2012 when the matter was already ended, and there had been some communications issues because of language problems. Suffice to say that we forwarded the papers and our translations to CEAHR, and they know all about it now.

    As for the Spanish, I engaged the services of an Argentinian Business Graduate who speaks impeccable English and Spanish, and we made contact with the Spanish NCA. They still have the file, and whilst they can’t show it to us, they are more than happy to share it with the UK Competition and Markets Authority. We then made contact with the Spanish Watchmakers Association, and I’m sure you will forgive me if I don’t go into any more detail as to what is going on at this moment in time…

    Clearly a useful opportunity was missed first time around. It is easy to look at all this and point fingers at others for apparently getting things wrong, but I am not about go along with that. Anyone who has had the gumption to stand up and fight for the future of our Trade gets my respect and admiration, especially with the meagre resources on available to most of them.

    The true learning from all this is just how important it was for the UK industry to fund at least one full time person to do the digging, investigate the issues, and communicate the results. If you have already contributed to the IAF, please consider giving further support. If you haven’t contributed yet, please do so by emailing me to iaf@bwcmg.org. If you still think it’s up to everyone else to pay for this kind of work, in my view the likely outcome is your business will fail. Worse still, if we allow that attitude to become the norm, then the last that anyone will see of the world’s independent Watch Repair trade is a once thriving industry doing a Silly Walk into the sunset whilst whistling “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”.

  9. #209
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,697
    Mark?

  10. #210
    Master alfat33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,198
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Hi alfat33,

    You are on the right road to understanding this situation, but you just slipped off down the wrong fork...do keep going, you are grasping the issue well.

    Regards

    Steve
    Thanks Steve. After your last post I feel that all my questions have been answered and I won't be forking off onto the wrong road now.

    Good luck with the case.

  11. #211
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SE
    Posts
    3,408
    Interesting thread, hope it leads somewhere...


    On a related note, Patek Philippe announced at Basel that they will stop supplying movement parts to dealers, even if they have trained watchmakers. They will start up service hubs (one in UK, Germany, Switzerland obvs.), where all watches will have to be sent for service and repair. Not sure what it's like outside Europe but I would guess the same. AD watchmakers will be able to do quickservice only, i.e replace gaskets and crowns, polishing, pressure test...

    Where they will find watchmakers to do the work is not clear to me.

    Centralised repair of watches seems to be way forward for some brands, Swatch Group and Breitling already headed that way...

  12. #212
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Torquay, Devon. Great place to work and relax. Love flying and lots of great sea walks.
    Posts
    2,551
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    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
    Switzerland is not an EU member as you know but I presume it is bound by these rules if it deals with EU Members or ex EU members ?
    A Rolex official once told me that Rolex would stop selling their watches in the UK if parts supply was forced upon them !
    How's that for narrow mindedness ?

    Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app

  13. #213
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by alfat33 View Post
    Thanks Steve. After your last post I feel that all my questions have been answered and I won't be forking off onto the wrong road now.

    Good luck with the case.
    Thanks, but don't rush off just yet. There's more.......

    Steve

  14. #214
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by 744ER View Post
    Interesting thread, hope it leads somewhere...


    On a related note, Patek Philippe announced at Basel that they will stop supplying movement parts to dealers, even if they have trained watchmakers. They will start up service hubs (one in UK, Germany, Switzerland obvs.), where all watches will have to be sent for service and repair. Not sure what it's like outside Europe but I would guess the same. AD watchmakers will be able to do quickservice only, i.e replace gaskets and crowns, polishing, pressure test...

    Where they will find watchmakers to do the work is not clear to me.

    Centralised repair of watches seems to be way forward for some brands, Swatch Group and Breitling already headed that way...
    Hi,

    I can only speculate as to why the brands are doing this, but as a purely personal opinion I think that in the first instance they are trying to clean up all the revenue from the repair market and radically increase repair charges (and therefore profits). Secondly I think they are trying to make high end watches into an expensive disposable item, so that they can make more units. I think they have seen how Apple have been able to persuade consumers that it is perfectly sensible to buy a £1,500 laptop, or a £800 tablet, or a £700 phone, and then chuck it out in favour of the new model in 12 months time. By hyping up the service charges and repair times, or not being able to repair 'older' watches they can make it more attractive to buy new instead. Just speculation on my part, but either way trying to control who buys spares and who does repairs is a breach of EU law, and the Spanish NCA agrees.

    Steve

  15. #215
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Webwatchmaker View Post
    Switzerland is not an EU member as you know but I presume it is bound by these rules if it deals with EU Members or ex EU members ?
    A Rolex official once told me that Rolex would stop selling their watches in the UK if parts supply was forced upon them !
    How's that for narrow mindedness ?

    Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app
    Hi

    If parts supply was restored in the UK, then it would follow in the EU very quickly, and I think worldwide also. If that means Rolex want to stop selling watches worldwide, that's up to them. Sounds to me like an irrational statement designed to try and put the frighteners on. Perhaps desperation is sinking in......

    Regards

    Steve

  16. #216
    Grand Master JasonM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    16,145
    Quote Originally Posted by demonloop View Post
    Mark?

  17. #217
    Master TKH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    3,858
    Per post #151


    Selective distribution with qualitative standards to protect their brands

    Providing the 30% argument does not come into play
    Last edited by TKH; 8th May 2017 at 11:32.

  18. #218
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Just re-read Steve's lengthy tome (Spanish Inquisition) and it does make interesting reading.

    One thing that concerns me is the time involved to sort these things out. Presently, Swatch Group are getting their own way and the longer than goes on the more successful they're likely to be in achieving their long-term goal of controlling all repair work. Ideally, this needs resolving sooner rather than later and it's a shame the action wasn`t started a couple of years back.

    It never ceases to amaze me how slowly the legal world works. If this rumbles on for years Swatch Group have got their own way; by the time a favourable ruling emerges (if that's the case) it'll be too late for many repairers, they'll have thrown in the towel, got a job elsewhere and they'll be doing watches on a part-time hobby basis.

    At the moment I see little incentive for anyone to enter the repair business, and that's all down to the uncertainty over parts supply together with the very high costs of gaining brand accreditation. The work is certainly out there at the moment, the repairers I have contact with are all stacked out with jobs and turning work down.

    To quote the car analogy, there will always be people who take their car to a main dealer for work and there will always be others who are happy to take a cheaper option by using independent repairers. There's plenty of pie for everyone, and I can`t see why the watch business can`t remain like that. It's all about customer choice; there are no absolute right and wrong answers but taking the choice away from people is grossly unfair in my view. Without the small watch repairers (or monkeys like me) there'll be more and more watches sat in the back of sock drawers not working because the owner can`t justify the inflated cost of getting the things fixed.

    Paul
    Last edited by walkerwek1958; 8th May 2017 at 12:45.

  19. #219
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by TKH View Post
    Per post #151


    Selective distribution with qualitative standards to protect their brands

    Providing the 30% argument does not come into play.
    Hi TKH,

    But the 30% does come in to play. Please re read post 171. The EU Courts have already said that each brand of parts is a market by itself and that the brands are effectively 100% market dominant.

    The rights of the brands are second to the rights of the consumer, not the other way around. The 'brand protection' argument is fluff put around to confuse, don't fall for it. If watch retailers were putting parts branded with a Swiss company logo on a cheap foreign watch and then selling them as if they were Swiss, then you have a brand protection issue, but that isn't happening in this case. This is dominant undertakings abusing their position to control the repair market, limit where consumers can go for repairs, and push up prices.

    Regards

    Steve

  20. #220
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    Just re-read Steve's lengthy tomb (Spanish Inquisition) and it does make interesting reading.

    One thing that concerns me is the time involved to sort these things out. Presently, Swatch Group are getting their own way and the longer than goes on the more successful they're likely to be in achieving their long-term goal of controlling all repair work. Ideally, this needs resolving sooner rather than later and it's a shame the action wasn`t started a couple of years back.

    It never ceases to amaze me how slowly the legal world works. If this rumbles on for years Swatch Group have got their own way; by the time a favourable ruling emerges (if that's the case) it'll be too late for many repairers, they'll have thrown in the towel, got a job elsewhere and they'll be doing watches on a part-time hobby basis.

    At the moment I see little incentive for anyone to enter the repair business, and that's all down to the uncertainty over parts supply together with the very high costs of gaining brand accreditation. The work is certainly out there at the moment, the repairers I have contact with are all stacked out with jobs and turning work down.

    To quote the car analogy, there will always be people who take their car to a main dealer for work and there will always be others who are happy to take a cheaper option by using independent repairers. There's plenty of pie for everyone, and I can`t see why the watch business can`t remain like that. It's all about customer choice; there are no absolute right and wrong answers but taking the choice away from people is grossly unfair in my view. Without the small watch repairers (or monkeys like me) there'll be more and more watches sat in the back of sock drawers not working because the owner can`t justify the inflated cost of getting the things fixed.

    Paul
    Hi Paul,

    Absolutely right. I will post more soon on the issue of the speed of the legal process. I would be obliged if you could read my tome not my tomb, no one told me I had died and the prospect makes me nervous.

    Regards

    Steve

  21. #221
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Hi Paul,

    Absolutely right. I will post more soon on the issue of the speed of the legal process. I would be obliged if you could read my tome not my tomb, no one told me I had died and the prospect makes me nervous.

    Regards

    Steve
    Typo corrected Steve

    Paul

  22. #222
    Master TKH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    3,858
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Hi TKH,

    But the 30% does come in to play. Please re read post 171. The EU Courts have already said that each brand of parts is a market by itself and that the brands are effectively 100% market dominant.

    The rights of the brands are second to the rights of the consumer, not the other way around. The 'brand protection' argument is fluff put around to confuse, don't fall for it. If watch retailers were putting parts branded with a Swiss company logo on a cheap foreign watch and then selling them as if they were Swiss, then you have a brand protection issue, but that isn't happening in this case. This is dominant undertakings abusing their position to control the repair market, limit where consumers can go for repairs, and push up prices.

    Regards

    Steve
    Hi Steve

    That being the case you are arguing 'restrictive' / 'anti-competitive' practices which they will contest and defend based on needing to control output and customer experience so as not to undermine their reputation

    Has anyone approached for a compromise position whereby they accept to supply nominated authorised repairers who can demonstrate required skills and knowledge Cousins could become an AR and AD of components to other AR's

    The alternative is pattern parts rather than OE which would be worse all round imho.

    Let's hope you get a judge sympathetic to your position.

  23. #223
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by TKH View Post
    Hi Steve

    That being the case you are arguing 'restrictive' / 'anti-competitive' practices which they will contest and defend based on needing to control output and customer experience so as not to undermine their reputation

    Has anyone approached for a compromise position whereby they accept to supply nominated authorised repairers who can demonstrate required skills and knowledge Cousins could become an AR and AD of components to other AR's

    The alternative is pattern parts rather than OE which would be worse all round imho.

    Let's hope you get a judge sympathetic to your position.
    Hi TKH,

    Dominant undertakings do have the right to place reasonable controls on retailers in order to include the "customer experience" as part of the brand values when they initially buy a product, but not at the repair and service level. Imagine you own a brand new Rolls Royce and it breaks down. You call Rolls and they send out their roadside assistance to recover the car. Rolls will invariably send a covered vehicle truck because they feel anyone seeing a Rolls being towed in the open is bad for their brand image. That is how you can manage your reputation legally, but if you as the owner of the car get your mate with a tow truck to drag the car back to the garage, they can't refuse to repair it on the grounds that someone might have seen you, and you might have damaged their brand.

    I understand your idea of negotiating a compromise, but it is fundamentally flawed because any restriction in parts supply is a breach of Article 102, and if you collude in breaching article 102 then you place yourself in breach of Article 101 which is all about undertakings making agreements to work together to manipulate the market.

    I agree with your hope for a sympathetic Judge, but I think the case is so good that it will be difficult to find any other way than for open supply.

    Regards

    Steve

  24. #224
    Master TKH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    3,858
    Hi Steve

    Informative interpretation of 101 and 102

    But I beg to differ re your example as an AR of both Ford and GM we are heavily monitored at service level not just at point of supply to ensure qualatitive standards are met.
    All aspects are controlled - training , facilities, investment , tooling , mystery shoppers , managers accreditation , signage, financial reporting so to say it's not relevant after sale of goods is not correct at least not in motor industry.

    That said i guess it's not an issue as you clearly feel you have it in the bag which is great news.

    I assume win or lose each side pays own costs ?

  25. #225
    Grand Master Dave+63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    15,914
    Quote Originally Posted by TKH View Post
    Hi Steve

    Informative interpretation of 101 and 102

    But I beg to differ re your example as an AR of both Ford and GM we are heavily monitored at service level not just at point of supply to ensure qualatitive standards are met.
    All aspects are controlled - training , facilities, investment , tooling , mystery shoppers , managers accreditation , signage, financial reporting so to say it's not relevant after sale of goods is not correct at least not in motor industry.

    That said i guess it's not an issue as you clearly feel you have it in the bag which is great news.

    I assume win or lose each side pays own costs ?
    I think the difference here is that your company chooses to be an AR for Ford and GM and, as such, accepts the requirements of the manufacturers.

    You would still be able to source parts and continue trading if you chose not to adhere to their requirements, watchmakers currently don't have that option.

  26. #226
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by TKH View Post
    Hi Steve

    Informative interpretation of 101 and 102

    But I beg to differ re your example as an AR of both Ford and GM we are heavily monitored at service level not just at point of supply to ensure qualatitive standards are met.
    All aspects are controlled - training , facilities, investment , tooling , mystery shoppers , managers accreditation , signage, financial reporting so to say it's not relevant after sale of goods is not correct at least not in motor industry.

    That said i guess it's not an issue as you clearly feel you have it in the bag which is great news.

    I assume win or lose each side pays own costs ?
    Hi TKH,

    Dave+63 has beaten me to it, and is absolutely correct. There is no breach of either Article 101 or 102 because spare parts are freely available, so your agreements with Ford and GM do not manipulate the market. There is no issue with a manufacturer setting up a network of main dealers based on qualitative standards, and encouraging their customers to use them. Such arrangements only cross the line when a brand tries to force the consumer to use them by some method or other.

    If the Swiss brands wanted to operate a similar scheme to the auto trade, we wouldn't have any issue with it, nor would we have any issue with any watch repairer voluntarily wanting to become a main service agent. How each repairer choses to run their business is up to them. Unfortunately, the Swiss brands are trying to stop any repairers other than their dealer network from trading, and that is where the breach lies.

    Thank you for raising this example. It helps to explain the difference between the automotive system and the issue we face with watches.

    I am confident about the strength of our case, but I never like to use the phrase "in the bag" because nothing is ever guaranteed.

    The issue of costs is a matter for the courts to decide, and is not relevant to "Understanding Competition Law", so I am not able to respond to your question on that point.

    Regards

    Steve
    Last edited by stevendomb; 9th May 2017 at 10:15.

  27. #227
    Master TKH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    3,858
    Dave / Steve

    agree I chose to apply for the franchises and then get their standards / requirements etc and demonstrate we can meet them from day 1 by investing - lots.

    agree you could run without approval but without the 'franchise' you cannot do warranty repair work or put signs up or advertise as an AR or be listed as one of their AR / AD's which is a major advantage.

    I have many friends who are really good indy's who either source genuine parts from AD's which although more expensive do tend to last better or buy pattern parts (mainly produced in China) from local factors with varying results in parts longevity.

    what is seemingly significantly different is that if somebody applies to a vehicle manufacturer for their 'service franchise' they cannot technically be refused if they can prove and demonstrate they meet the standards, even if the manufacturer may not always like it.

    In my humble : Its is worth exploring wether they will acquiesce find common ground and selectively appoint 'Service Dealers' AR's who can meet their standards and attend their in house training to become accredited, Cousins could employ a "watchsmith" become an AR & Parts AD and supply other AR's.

    Even if they agree to having 'Heritage' AR's that would be a big win for all.

    although I suspect your going to tell me they are unwilling to listen ?

    hope your hard work and optimism is rewarded as we need to keep our tickers ticking !

  28. #228
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by TKH View Post
    Dave / Steve

    agree I chose to apply for the franchises and then get their standards / requirements etc and demonstrate we can meet them from day 1 by investing - lots.

    agree you could run without approval but without the 'franchise' you cannot do warranty repair work or put signs up or advertise as an AR or be listed as one of their AR / AD's which is a major advantage.

    I have many friends who are really good indy's who either source genuine parts from AD's which although more expensive do tend to last better or buy pattern parts (mainly produced in China) from local factors with varying results in parts longevity.

    what is seemingly significantly different is that if somebody applies to a vehicle manufacturer for their 'service franchise' they cannot technically be refused if they can prove and demonstrate they meet the standards, even if the manufacturer may not always like it.

    In my humble : Its is worth exploring wether they will acquiesce find common ground and selectively appoint 'Service Dealers' AR's who can meet their standards and attend their in house training to become accredited, Cousins could employ a "watchsmith" become an AR & Parts AD and supply other AR's.

    Even if they agree to having 'Heritage' AR's that would be a big win for all.

    although I suspect your going to tell me they are unwilling to listen ?

    hope your hard work and optimism is rewarded as we need to keep our tickers ticking !

    Hi THK,

    I don't want to take this thread off track because the issue at hand is whether or not the refusal to supply spares is an abuse of market dominance, however the issue of who can and can't be a service agent is also covered by competition law.

    If we were to engage with a system where we agreed to limit supply to only those who meet a certain standard that is set by the brand, that would be a breach of Article 101. Look at it this way, you own a watch, why should you not be able to buy parts for it and repair it yourself if you want to? If you want to give it to Fred Flinstone to repair, knowing that his only tool is a 14 pound lump hammer, then that is also your business and your right. It's your watch, it doesn't belong to the brand.

    If Fred Flinstone tells you he is a fully equipped and qualified watch repairer and sends back your timepiece in a thousand pieces, then you have loads of consumer legislation to prosecute him with to get recompense. There are two problems with trying to avoid that scenario by controlling the supply of parts. the first is that you are presuming that Fred is going to commit an offence by pretending to be a watch repairer, before he has committed any offence. That would be like prosecuting a car driver for speeding as soon as they start their car just in case they might speed on their journey. The legal system needs to see an offence, before it can deal with it.

    The second problem is that you are placing artificial barriers in the way of anyone wanting to enter the watch repair market. There are plenty of self taught people who do excellent work, why do they have to pass some arbitrary standard in order to buy parts? If their clients are happy with the work they do at the prices they charge, then why should they be stopped. That is consumer choice and competition as it should be.

    As it happens, Cousins did try very hard to negotiate for supply to the independent trade, and sadly you are right, the other side wouldn't listen.

    Thanks for the good wishes.

    Steve

  29. #229
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SE
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    The second problem is that you are placing artificial barriers in the way of anyone wanting to enter the watch repair market. There are plenty of self taught people who do excellent work, why do they have to pass some arbitrary standard in order to buy parts?
    Arbitrary? That's just wrong. The standards suggested by WOSTEP for instance, as well as Rolex and Omega in-house training courses etc, have been developed over several decades...

    There is no way a self taught amateur could reach the same level of quality work because he does not have access to the information and/or tools needed to do it. It's pretty simple really.

    There should definitaly be a brand certification/validation process made possible before anyone is allowed to buy parts, but anyone should be able to set up shop and apply imho, and if successful, they can start to do repairs...

  30. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by 744ER View Post
    Arbitrary? That's just wrong. The standards suggested by WOSTEP for instance, as well as Rolex and Omega in-house training courses etc, have been developed over several decades...

    There is no way a self taught amateur could reach the same level of quality work because he does not have access to the information and/or tools needed to do it. It's pretty simple really.

    There should definitaly be a brand certification/validation process made possible before anyone is allowed to buy parts, but anyone should be able to set up shop and apply imho, and if successful, they can start to do repairs...
    Isnt that the current state of play?
    It's just a matter of time...

  31. #231
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Quote Originally Posted by 744ER View Post
    Arbitrary? That's just wrong. The standards suggested by WOSTEP for instance, as well as Rolex and Omega in-house training courses etc, have been developed over several decades...

    There is no way a self taught amateur could reach the same level of quality work because he does not have access to the information and/or tools needed to do it. It's pretty simple really.

    There should definitaly be a brand certification/validation process made possible before anyone is allowed to buy parts, but anyone should be able to set up shop and apply imho, and if successful, they can start to do repairs...
    I can see both sides of this.

    Apart from some training with the BHI I`m self-taught. I can do the majority of work needed to service and sort out most straightforward watches, but I know my limitations. That doesn`t make me a poor repairer, it means I take on jobs that are within the scope of my capability. I`ve serviced plenty of 60s Omegas, I can replace jewels, I can replace balance staffs, I can rebush Omega rotors, I can true up a hairspring and correct positional errors, I can correct endshake issues, I can assess why a watch isn`t performing well.

    What I can`t do is make a balance staff, or pin a hairspring to its centre collect. I can`t make parts.....I can`t call myself a true 'watchmaker', but I don`t need to. Ironically, some of the hardest jobs on modern watches involve the case rather than the movement. Swapping pushers, removing bezels, replacing pendant tubes on some models, these require special tools that I don`t have. I have the tools for some models, not others, but to get equipped with everything would be v. costly.

    Lets consider co-axial movements. I`ve never worked on one, but I understand exactly what's involved and I understand how to do it right. I don`t have a microscope (yet) that would be needed to get the lubrication right and I don`t have access to new escapement parts if required. On that basis, I don`t touch them, and rightly so.

    There's absolutely no reason why Swatch shouldn`t sell me parts to service older SMPs (cal 1120) or Speedy Moonwatches, there's no reason why they shouldn`t sell me parts for the 60s cal 550/560/601 models or the 70s 1010s. However, I could understand reluctance to sell parts for co-axials because these movements are specialised. The last thing Omega want is a world full of poorly serviced co-axials that are stopping, I fully understand that. However, some sort of validation exam could be put in place to address this specific issue, that would make a lot of sense.

    It isn`t black and white; I can understand the view of professionally trained repairers who've jumped through some difficult hoops to get where they are. However, I do think there are others out there who can do a capable job within their own limitations. It's down to the individual to be honest with himself and recognise his limitations, taking jobs on accordingly. I see no point in trying to do jobs that are beyond me, it would only end up with dissatisfied owners and, frankly, it would stress me to a point where the work ceased to be enjoyable. I take very few jobs on thesedays owing to other commitments but I wholeheartedly stand by every watch I work on; if I wasn`t confident (despite my limited background) I wouldn`t do it.....but I do know my limitations.

    As for accessing information, it's never been a problem to me yet. I have a few contacts who help me when I need it......and the internet is a wonderful resource. The Bulova 14EFAD Service manual (60s/70s automatic chronograph) on my desk is proof of that point, that's enabled me to do a job I wouldn't have touched otherwise.

    I have plenty of respect for the previous poster but I think we have to agree to differ on a few points here, it's unfair to generalise.

    Paul

  32. #232
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    And another thing......is the world really full of incompetent watch repairers buying parts and doing poor repairs?....somehow I doubt it. Swatch Group are trying to solve a problem that doesn`t exist, although I`ve qualified that in my previous reference to co-axials.

    It's not like nailing a fence back up when the wind's blown it down!

    Paul

  33. #233
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SE
    Posts
    3,408
    I don't think we should expect Omega (or Rolex) to keep making parts for the vintage calibers forever. Something to remember also.

  34. #234
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Quote Originally Posted by 744ER View Post
    I don't think we should expect Omega (or Rolex) to keep making parts for the vintage calibers forever. Something to remember also.
    Fair point, but given the number of old Omegas out there I would've thought it was a profitable business for the common calibres provided the original tooling etc still exists. Surely it's good business to keep selling 550 spring barrels and reversers at £60+ each! If these old watches end up sat in drawers because they're too expensive to restore they don`t sell anything, if folks like me are allowed to buy parts it keeps these old watches going , it keeps the owners happy, and it means I keep my pastime.

    If that isn`t a win-win I don`t know what is! Indeed, Omega could capitalise on the fact that they actively support their watches long-term by making parts freely available. OK, that means removing some of the mystique, but most people see through that anyway.

    Paul

  35. #235
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Omegamanic View Post
    Isnt that the current state of play?
    In some respects it is, but the standards set down are so stringent it's unreasonable (financially) to expect the traditional one man band repairers to meet them. They claim that such high standards are a prerequisite to doing quality work, many people disagree.

    A guy called John Murphy, a highly qualified repairer who runs the BHI courses, is unable to get accreditation without spending a lot to do so. I doubt whether the BHI facilities at Upton Hall would be deemed acceptable.....it really is crazy.

    Paul

  36. #236
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by 744ER View Post
    Arbitrary? That's just wrong. The standards suggested by WOSTEP for instance, as well as Rolex and Omega in-house training courses etc, have been developed over several decades...

    There is no way a self taught amateur could reach the same level of quality work because he does not have access to the information and/or tools needed to do it. It's pretty simple really.

    There should definitaly be a brand certification/validation process made possible before anyone is allowed to buy parts, but anyone should be able to set up shop and apply imho, and if successful, they can start to do repairs...
    Hi 744ER and others,

    Let me be very clear, I am not advocating a dumbing down of standards in the trade. Far from it, I am a supporter of the idea of life long learning and spent 8 years setting up an accessible watch training facility. I entirely respect those who want to see standards raised, but the method that this is done by has to be lawful.

    This is a point about whether or not the law is structured to control the quality of service by preventing anyone from entering a trade until they meet a certain standard of capability and facilities, or if the law controls quality of service by penalising anyone who HAS failed to provide the reasonable requirements of the consumer.

    Clearly for areas such as the medical professions where human life is at stake, it is essential that the law ensures only those who are properly trained and meet a government set standard are permitted to practice, and that does mean that many who would like to go into this area can't afford the education and lose out, but can you imagine the administrative chaos if every skill had to be controlled in the same way? Watch repair is not life threatening (at least not in this sense), so control by legally or artificially preventing unskilled entry to the trade just isn't the right approach.

    The use of the word "arbitrary" is correct here. Suggesting the WOSTEP standard is an idea, but they are controlled by the brands, so that would potentially be another breach of Article 101. You can go through every qualification out there but the choice is "arbitrary" unless the Government declares what the standard is, and not only is that not going to happen, but it doesn't need to happen.

    What 16 year old is going to be able to afford 3 years of WOSTEP fees plus living expenses and then tens of thousands of pounds more buying tools and equipment before they can earn a penny in wages? Such a requirement is an unnecessary barrier to anyone wanting to earn a lawful living from the trade of their choice. Placing artificial barriers to entry into a market is another breach of Article 101.

    There is a massive debate to be had about how, in an open and competitive market, watch repairers should work together to ensure that high standards are maintained, and rogue traders are removed, but that is not for this thread. This is about whether or not refusing open supply of spare parts is lawful, and I am giving you the reasons why the law requires that open supply be maintained.

    744ER, I understand the good motives behind your reply and I respect them, but can you now see why the law is structured for the other approach? Thanks for your contribution to the debate.

    Regards

    Steve
    Last edited by stevendomb; 10th May 2017 at 10:50.

  37. #237
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by 744ER View Post
    I don't think we should expect Omega (or Rolex) to keep making parts for the vintage calibers forever. Something to remember also.
    Hi 744ER,

    The law governing how long spares should be available is actually a bit sideways in the UK because it stems from the laws on advertising and the sales process. If an item is sold on the basis that "You don't own it, you are just looking after it for future generations.", then if parts aren't available for "generations" the advertising rules have been breached. I don't have any substantial knowledge about what the law says about how long parts have to be available for, but that time period would have to be at least in line with the service life of the product being sold.

    Interestingly, in France in 2014, they introduced a law that requires anyone selling consumer products to reveal to the customer as part of the pre sales process if that product will need servicing and repair, what the cost of routine servicing is likely to be over the life of the product, and how many years the manufacturer has committed to making spares available. This information then has to be given a second time to the consumer in writing with their sales receipt when they make a purchase. No prizes for guessing which industry is trying to find a way around that one......

    Heritage parts can be made available easily, the motor trade does it. All the Swiss would need to do is set up a joint 'Heritage' company and hand over the tooling for the parts when they no longer need it for primary supply. Of course such a move would mean consumers would be less likely to bin their watch and buy a new one......

    Regards

    Steve

  38. #238
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    I'm trying to visualise the scenario where someone has an old watch, he can't get parts at a reasonable price, so he scraps it and buys a new expensive one!

    If someone owns a 40 year old Omega it isn't being worn daily as an alternative to a new model, I refuse to believe that keeping old watches alive has any effect whatsoever on new sales. Hell, even the Swiss can't believe this!

    If we're talking Seiko kinetics or cheap Citizen watches, yes, this logic applies; they reach a atage where they're not worth mending unless there's sentimental attachement, but if we're considering the Swiss brands I don't accept it.

    Paul

  39. #239
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    I'm trying to visualise the scenario where someone has an old watch, he can't get parts at a reasonable price, so he scraps it and buys a new expensive one!

    If someone owns a 40 year old Omega it isn't being worn daily as an alternative to a new model, I refuse to believe that keeping old watches alive has any effect whatsoever on new sales. Hell, even the Swiss can't believe this!

    If we're talking Seiko kinetics or cheap Citizen watches, yes, this logic applies; they reach a atage where they're not worth mending unless there's sentimental attachement, but if we're considering the Swiss brands I don't accept it.

    Paul
    Hi Paul,

    Think one stage further. Imagine if the Swiss brands are trying to emulate Apple by getting people to think it is the norm to buy a product for £1,500 and scrap it 18 months later because the cost of repair is too great. If the cost of a service on a watch is half the purchase price, then the temptation to 'upgrade' to the new model is there.

    Then add in the concept that they really don't want people keeping watches longer than say 10 years, so maybe they won't make spares beyond that point. So how could they then justify such a policy if they were making 'heritage' spares for even older watches?

    Finally, if the brands offer independent repairers 'heritage' spares, it rather blows a massive hole in the Swiss argument that independents shouldn't be allowed to repair their watches because the independent's standard of work is (allegedly) so poor that it damages the image of the brands. (If you are fit to repair a valuable collector's watch, why are you not fit to work on a modern one?)

    Regards

    Steve

  40. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post

    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".
    It's not a criminal offence and I think it's wrong of you to make this inference.

    If you are not a legitimate trader, then it is, at best, a misrepresentation but that is a matter of civil (contract) law and not criminal law.

  41. #241
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by messym View Post
    It's not a criminal offence and I think it's wrong of you to make this inference.

    If you are not a legitimate trader, then it is, at best, a misrepresentation but that is a matter of civil (contract) law and not criminal law.
    I dealt with that remark in my post number 184 in this thread. Please look again

    Steve

  42. #242
    Grand Master Chris_in_the_UK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Norf Yorks
    Posts
    42,918
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    I dealt with that remark in my post number 184 in this thread. Please look again

    Steve
    Discussion aside, you can be very patronising.
    When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........

  43. #243
    Grand Master Carlton-Browne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Berlin, London and sometimes Dublin
    Posts
    14,907
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    I dealt with that remark in my post number 184 in this thread. Please look again

    Steve
    I disagree - you've merely side-stepped it.

  44. #244
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    68

    Understanding Competition Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_in_the_UK View Post
    Discussion aside, you can be very patronising.
    Hi Chris,

    One of the problems with text based internet forums is that those reading what is written do not have all the visual and verbal cues available to them that they would in face to face conversation. If you chose to read what I write as patronising, I can't stop you, but I can assure you it isn't written with that intent.

    Try looking at all this through my eyes for a moment. Anthony Cousins and I have spent the past three years trying to get the trade to stop arguing amongst themselves, to get organised, and to work collectively to stop themselves from being wiped out. Too many people still think that the appropriate response is to denigrate our efforts and approach, to divert important discussion off into other areas, and to spread personal criticism. It isn't constructive, it doesn't help, and it won't solve the problem.

    I said right at the start that I wasn't prepared to get into a debate about how Cousins run their business, but I was prepared to share what I have learned and explain the situation. Despite that, some members of this forum still want to exercise their 'right' to ignore that limitation. Do you really think that I should have to tolerate this? Do you see me criticising individuals over their personal approach to watch repairing, or do you see me fighting for everyone's right to free and fair competition. Do you see me spreading misinformation and gossip, or do you see me providing properly referenced information and explanation, and complimenting people when they engage in discussion?

    If you don't want my input on this forum, just say so, but don't snipe from the side, and if you see something written that doesn't look right to you, stop and ask yourself if it could be read two ways, and then assume the better of the two.

    Steve

  45. #245
    Master MFB Scotland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ayrshire
    Posts
    6,032
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_in_the_UK View Post
    Discussion aside, you can be very patronising.
    Totally agree. I am out on this thread.

  46. #246
    Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    6,697
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Hi Paul,

    Think one stage further. Imagine if the Swiss brands are trying to emulate Apple by getting people to think it is the norm to buy a product for £1,500 and scrap it 18 months later because the cost of repair is too great. If the cost of a service on a watch is half the purchase price, then the temptation to 'upgrade' to the new model is there.
    No, you're wrong. Last years iPhones aren't scrapped. They're sold for a pretty good residual price on ebay.

    Even if they are damaged, are you suggesting they can't be fixed? I live in a small town and there's 4/5 businesses repairing Apple products for modest costs. Your comparison is severely flawed.

  47. #247
    Grand Master Chris_in_the_UK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Norf Yorks
    Posts
    42,918
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    If you don't want my input on this forum, just say so, but don't snipe from the side, and if you see something written that doesn't look right to you, stop and ask yourself if it could be read two ways, and then assume the better of the two.

    Steve
    No, you are very patronising.
    When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........

  48. #248
    Master MFB Scotland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ayrshire
    Posts
    6,032
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris_in_the_UK View Post
    No, you are very patronising.
    The thread was at one point quite interesting. That ended a number of posts ago.

  49. #249
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by stevendomb View Post
    Hi Chris,

    One of the problems with text based internet forums is that those reading what is written do not have all the visual and verbal cues available to them that they would in face to face conversation. If you chose to read what I write as patronising, I can't stop you, but I can assure you it isn't written with that intent.

    Try looking at all this through my eyes for a moment. Anthony Cousins and I have spent the past three years trying to get the trade to stop arguing amongst themselves, to get organised, and to work collectively to stop themselves from being wiped out. Too many people still think that the appropriate response is to denigrate our efforts and approach, to divert important discussion off into other areas, and to spread personal criticism. It isn't constructive, it doesn't help, and it won't solve the problem.

    I said right at the start that I wasn't prepared to get into a debate about how Cousins run their business, but I was prepared to share what I have learned and explain the situation. Despite that, some members of this forum still want to exercise their 'right' to ignore that limitation. Do you really think that I should have to tolerate this? Do you see me criticising individuals over their personal approach to watch repairing, or do you see me fighting for everyone's right to free and fair competition. Do you see me spreading misinformation and gossip, or do you see me providing properly referenced information and explanation, and complimenting people when they engage in discussion?

    If you don't want my input on this forum, just say so, but don't snipe from the side, and if you see something written that doesn't look right to you, stop and ask yourself if it could be read two ways, and then assume the better of the two.

    Steve
    Steve , As you represent Anthony Cousins and his business its wrong of you to want to pick and choose the issues you are willing to discuss . This fight whether it be a personal one or an all encompassing Industry/ commercial one nonetheless incorporates everything that your employer / fee payer or however the situation is between the both of you envelopes everything that the both of you stand for . And I`m afraid you have to deal with this like it or not . Its a forum of free speech . If you don`t like bad news and opinion then I`m afraid its a bit tough .
    On the other side you have highlighted the issues admirably and I think most would agree its a cause well worth fighting for although had the BHI and other custodians of the watchmaking industry taken the lead things would of taken on a whole different scenario and I feel wholehearted support .

  50. #250
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    Have to agree with the previous comment re. the BHI. They could've proposed compromise solutions based on training/validation, I'm convinced of that point.

    Steve's input to this thread has been informative. Personally I don't feel inclined to argue over semantics; I could take issue with some of the statements but I see no point in squabbling, there are bigger issues at stake. Anthony Cousins will always have his critics and I have been one of them at times, his organisation could be far more customer-friendly and he probably knows that, but I am fully supportive of his actions in challenging Swatch Group.

    Some of Steve's comments could be construed as patronising; when lawyers communicate with each other (and the rest of us) this is often the case. Maybe the forum should cut him some slack on this point.

    Paul

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