I just want to send out a thank you to John for his wonderful work and his helping all of out during this wacky transitional time in analog photography. He was foremost in supporting us for the APUG conference. He also just happens to be a really nice person and this whole thiing stinks-bigtime. Thank you john-and I' m sure that I speak for the majority here...good luck in whatever road you travel on next.
Best, Peter Schrager
A very sad ending to something that looked so promissing. Best to you and your family John.
Now i am very curious about the lawsuits, if they in any way are from people i currently deal with i would like to know so i could end that relationship very fast.
jan
One possibility that occurs to me is that not selling products for many months might have been something that J&C's suppliers objected to. This is speculation, and I have absolutely no inside knowledge, but it looks like the kind of thing that can happen in cases like this. I also agree with the previous post that we really don't know that the lawsuits are frivolous, except that J&C believes that they are. (Even if we had all the details, frivolity is in the eye of the beholder.)As it operated several months ago without, I assume, any threats from suppliers or frivolous lawsuits, what has prompted these?
[snip]
There may be rivals who will be unhappy at the prospect of renewed competition but what lawsuits does the U.S. law allow which authorises what I can only assume to be a form of restraint of trade in the broadest sense of the word?
With this I agree. I doubt that what is being hinted at will not be made public, but it is hard to see this happen and not know what is going on. Of course, knowing more wouldn't help since we still wouldn't have J&C and the knowledge or accusations might hurt other suppliers or manufacturers as well.There are a lot more questions than answers at this point.
As it operated several months ago without, I assume, any threats from suppliers or frivolous lawsuits, what has prompted these?
I thought that it closed down in order to re-open, as a bigger and more comprehensive company and couldn't logistically or financially continue to operate its then current business while trying to set up the new outfit.
Presumably the extra cash and other resources were guaranteed before it closed down, otherwise why give up a successful business and take a big hit cashflow wise unless such guarantees were in place?
I am sure I am missing something or many things here but I cannot construct a scenario of how the circumstances which has prevented re-opening taking place have come about.
There may be rivals who will be unhappy at the prospect of renewed competition but what lawsuits does the U.S. law allow which authorises what I can only assume to be a form of restraint of trade in the broadest sense of the word?
There are a lot more questions than answers at this point.
pentaxuser
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?