Legal arguments about Hypex and NORD licensing

[Samoyed]

Dude, seriously, you need to remove your head.

The guy has created such a swirling mass of contradictory mistakes of law that leaving it would be a crime against nature

And, he couldn’t hold Bill Newcomb’s water and he knows it.

Pure Dee bullcrap, such as imputing an apparent resale pricing agreement to Nord and Hypex, and then making the Janus faced argument that Nord could then, with unclean imputed by him, bring suit against Hypex for its concerted action? Wow.

If he’d read and understood Leegin, as the cross disciplinary genius he claims to be, he would understand the likelihood that the agreement he assumes or imputes is likely valid in every US jurisdiction, even California, and I suspect he has similarly misapplied EU conventions.

He is free to yank my ticket at any time. In fact, I expressly consent to, and invite the same.

AMF (Adios, my friend!)

 

[dinglehoser]

This is why lawyer jokes are a thing.

 

[Samoyed]

Some light reading for you, hosebag: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...7026113098102083072113089093108031000&EXT=pdf

Even in the PU Hypex can defend by show procompetitive advantages, such as pricing which is high enough to assure future research and development by third party integrators. Just getting small companies to further research use of the module likely means those costs are high, in a field where the product is perishable and competition rife, and should be quickly recovered.

Now, hosebag, keep in mind that the PU, like the US Supreme Court, recognizes the distinction between inter and intrabrand competition, and something like the Colgate doctrine that says a manufacturer, absent an agreement, can withhold product from anyone he wishes, especially discounters, and especially discounters that get a “free ride” intrabrand.

Even in the PU it appears to be res nova in the application, where there is an AGREEMENT, a condition precedent to TFEU attaching, between a mere component manufacturer and an integrator/manufacturer, so all this flapping and hissing about conclusory outcomes, based on imputed or assumed agreements is just bull crap.

 

[Samoyed]

Ok, hosebag, this joke is for you since you claim to be a lawyer.

A lawyer dies and finds himself standing in a great line before St. Peter who interrogates each soul from the contents of the big book before judging them. The lawyer shuffles forward for what seems like an eternity before he finally stands before St. Peter. St. Peter tells him there is only one rule, a per se rule as it were. If you truthfully answer the question, you go to heaven, but if you lie, there is an irrebuttable preumption of guilt and you go to Hell. Hosebag, being a clever lawyer and sequipedalian swells with confidence in his skill of many years and asks for the question. St Peter looks at hosebag sternly and says, “Hosebag, how old are you?” Hosebag, flush with pride instantly responds, “77!” St. Peter looks visibly shaken and leafs back and forth through the Big Book, finally saying, “Hosebag, according to your billing records you are 135.”

I’d say go to Hell but I never want to hear from you again, hosebag.

 

[McFly]

This guy preaching law on a audio forum. Someone get him some water

 

[dinglehoser]

This guy preaching law on a audio forum. Someone get him some water

and Xanax

 

[Samoyed]

This guy preaching law on a audio forum. Someone get him some water

I’m not preaching. It’s a forum, for learned discussion. If you are too dull to understand that, fine. This began when several layman postulated, wrongly, that an agreement existed (what agreement?) that violated US antitrust law. When that was shown to be bull crap, the forum suddenly became Europe to evade this issue, and it’s now turning out that was utter bullcrap, too. McFly, what do you think a forum is? Do you understand that the admin and others invited a vigorous discussion of the principles? If not, why don’t you buzz off.

 

[Samoyed]

and Xanax

And, again, hosebag, an ad hominem is your only argument?

 

[RayDunzl]

hosebag

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_calling

 

[JJB70]

I think it actually ki

I’m not preaching. It’s a forum, for learned discussion. If you are too dull to understand that, fine. This began when several layman postulated, wrongly, that an agreement existed (what agreement?) that violated US antitrust law. When that was shown to be bull crap, the forum suddenly became Europe to evade this issue, and it’s now turning out that was utter bullcrap, too. McFly, what do you think a forum is? Do you understand that the admin and others invited a vigorous discussion of the principles? If not, why don’t you buzz off.

No, I think it started off with an Australian member commenting that he considered Hypex were violating Australian law by engaging in price maintenance. Followed by Amir and then myself commenting, given that my posts are accompanied by details showing that my location is England I didn't consider it necessary to make explicit that by "here" I was talking about England. However, don't let that interfere with a rant eh?

 

[Wombat]

Argument by lawyers is not limited to fact, truth or fairness - more to biased interpretation of past subjective statutes, which are usually arrived at via vested interests at the time. This is not to say they don't put forward valid, relevant, points.

 

[kevinh]

When I hear the words 'Anti Competitive' I think of economic entities who control a market IOW a virtual monopoly.
Microsoft is a virtual monopoly in the area of PC operating Systems, Facebook and Twitter are certainly Trust in the classic sense due to their market control.
Economically Hypex is a minor player in the Audio market as a whole, even the "High End' portion, much less the entire market for consumer audio. Their 'controlling' the market for certain of their product line to try and survive economically isn't a big deal, like Apple and Samsung getting together to set prices for the cell phone market for AT&T and Verizon setting prices for Cell service in the US or T-Mobile and a big player in the EU getting together to set prices for cell service.

I am not a Lawyer just throwing out my 2 cents worth.

 

[Samoyed]

To the hosebags, (q.v.: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hosebag#Noun ), here, in part, is what poor Colin posted on his site (I went back and searched for it):

“We are exited (sic) to offer our new Hypex NC1200 based amplifier using Hypex's best module and Nord REV D buffer boards.

Until recently the Hypex NC1200 was only available to a few Manufactures and with amplifiers costing upwards of £10K. We had access to the module but with a minimum pricing policy of £6.5K decided was to (sic) expensive for a boutique manufacture like Nord. A recent change in pricing policy means we are free to price as we feel fit. Without the expensive infrastructure of distributors , dealers, Reps, advertising, shows and other expensive we can bring you this exhaulted amplifier at a reasonable cost.”

Applying objective canons of construction in a purely post hoc, subjective way, my rant-based opinions include the following:

1. There are several latent ambiguities, meaning several propositions are subject to more than one reasonable construction;

2. The “term” or term of art “policy” does NOT necessarily imply an agreement, contract or concerted action by or between Hypex, Nord or anyone, which under the Sherman Act is a condition precedent to application (the Colgate doctrine allows unilateral sales termination or withholding sales by a manufacturer, and by analogy or extension, a component manufacturer/patent owner);

3. By common acceptation, usage and meaning, a “policy” is unilateral, or fixed by but one party, and, at best, the assertion is silent on the existence of an underlying contract of sale, or contract/agreement in the nature of a resale price maintenance covenant; and,

4. The most reasonable construction or surviving inference (ejusdem generis) is that Hypex has terminated its prior UNILATERAL sales policy, regardless of territorial scope, and component integrators/manufactures/direct sellers are now free to apply market forces and sell their devices integrating Hypex components as their gross margins or market forces dictate.

Necessarily, Colin’s remaining clear and unambiguous words or assertions, and all reasonable and necessary inferences arising therefrom, if assumed to be true, make the entire discussion (from its inception!) of imputed, assumed, speculated or inferred resale price maintenance agreements or concerted action MOOT anywhere in the WORLD. (“We are free....”)

Several interesting matters, some of first impression in all jurisdictions, remain in the abstract: paramount among them is whether a COMPONENT manufacturer, in exercising a “legal” viz patent based monopoly can, by withholding sales, sales contract or price maintenance agreement, directly or indirectly control the end manufacturer-direct seller’s retail price of the end product (are manufacturer to manufacturer sales or agreements within the purview of any or all statutory schema, as opposed to end manufacturer to distributor sales or agreements?).

I’ll see you hosebags in Hell.

 

[Samoyed]

Argument by lawyers is not limited to fact, truth or fairness - more to biased interpretation of past subjective statutes, which are usually arrived at via vested interests at the time. This is not to say they don't put forward valid, relevant, points.

I don’t have a vested interest of any species. I do own a lovely Nord One Up MK II, with Sparkos opamps. For me, it is an interesting discussion regarding issues of law, settled and unsettled, I dealt with before retirement. A forum is either a forum fostering such, or a place where like minded folks use casuistic glysters to blow smoke up each others’ metaphoric arses.

 

[Icboschert]

 

[Thomas savage]

View attachment 27503

Impressive cock sock..

 

[kevinh]

BTW I am glad that Nord has produced amps for 33% less than what Hypex would have preferred.

 

[Samoyed]

Oh my God, that’s Johnny Ringo’s pig!

 

[restorer-john]

Several interesting matters, some of first impression in all jurisdictions, remain in the abstract: paramount among them is whether a COMPONENT manufacturer, in exercising a “legal” viz patent based monopoly can, by withholding sales, sales contract or price maintenance agreement, directly or indirectly control the end manufacturer-direct seller’s retail price of the end product (are manufacturer to manufacturer sales or agreements within the purview of any or all statutory schema, as opposed to end manufacturer to distributor sales or agreements?).

When I started this, I was considering our market, and specified in this country Australia where such behaviour is supposedly illegal.

Obviously, with Nord being a UK manufacturer, and having a minimum price dictated in pounds, they (Nord) were also referring to their own country (UK). Also a country where such behaviour is apparently outlawed.

You went completely off the rails and down a country specific (US) legal argument which derailed the thread for nearly 60 posts and brought us right back to where we were. Many pages of typing, a whole lot of unnecessary insults, some needlessly upset members and a whole lot of wasted time to come to exactly the same position.

I'm relieved we aren't paying by the minute or word for such obfuscation.

 

[Samoyed]

Amusing, really, how you know Colin’s state of mind, or anyone else’s for that matter-Colin and Hypex expressly direct their sales efforts at the US. Nord even has an optional service package for US buyers.

So, not only does Colin necessarily contemplate US law must apply to those efforts but he provides for it in some measure. I didn’t set the issue regarding the application of US law in motion but merely pointed out to the confuser in chief that his “imputed” contract likely didn’t violate US law and then he moved the goal post to Europe with the same result.

You and your fatuous posts are not the focus, locus or measure of anything but a full on load of speculative bullcrap.

Moot is moot, even in Australian jurisprudence. Obviously, there never was any agreement, so your contentions were merely theoretic and silly, and Hypex is said to have terminated the policy prior to your posting, which means it was moot before your posted, and doubly silly.

I’m sure you are swollen with pride, but your posts, then and now, are baseless.

Regardless of who put US law in issue, it is clearly relevant to the discussion, the scope of which you DO NOT dictate. Every commentator’s paper I read or posted found US law relevant to the subject matter of anti-trust law, and always compared and contrasted The US schema with that of Europe. Among his many other “obvious” marketing efforts directed at the US, Colin provides the following:


Make it Easy USA & Canada Buy and Support Bundle
Price£10.00

Though the price is stated in pounds, no rational or reasonable person would infer anything from the currency listing other than that is the price, though the exchange rate likely varies over time.