I too concur with r2's statements.
Mag has successfully capitalized on the general public's ignorance and apathy in terms of a general all around "quality" flashlight. With economies of scale, Mag has provided the public a well made and durable tool at incredibly low prices. It is one of the few domestically produced products that can compete price wise with inexpensive import.
As a tool, a flashlight produces light (Duh). Advances in technology have given us better sources of light as well as more efficient and more effective methods of delivering the light produced to the target. Mag has chosen not to embrace these technological improvements which is certainly their choice. From their actions as well as other indications, it would appear that Mag is doing what they can to keep others from bringing such improvements to market. This may be to Mag's financial benefit but not to the consumer's benefit, IMHO. I personally want a better tool and the option of selecting from a range of available product. I resent any company in the position and with the resources to hinder product improvement.
Whether Mag is working within the legal frame work to accomplish a control of the market and impeding the implementation of technological advances is not my concern. The mere fact that they do this is. A recent post brought to light that Mag paid $900,000 in fines for tax evasion as well as improper campaign contributions. I think of the tooling for a better reflector or R&D for an improved light source that this money could have gone to and I cringe!
If Mag's in house legal staff has nothing better to do then try to remove technically advanced competition by bleeding small and upcoming companies who are not capitalized to the point of doing legal battle with Mag then perhaps Mag should consider reducing their legal staff and diverting the saved resources to their R&D department.
Assume a hypothetical case of ACME Flashlight, a small company designing and bringing leading edge technology in flashlight products to market. If ACME is perceived as a threat to Mag's market, they can respond in any manner of fashions. In one case, they can bring ACME to court. Whether they actually have a case that could be won against ACME is not an issue as Mag can effectively force a cost of defense on ACME that can be lethal in itself. Mag can also chose to manufacture a similar product to ACME's but with an economy of scale that would likely put Mag's offering on the shelf at a fraction of the selling price of ACME's. In either case, Mag will effectively retain their market share. In my opinion, Mag has done a real disservice to the consumer by not following the latter example; oversimplified as it may be.
I don't hate Mag personally, I have no use for them. I also think they are a glowing example of what might be legal in our society but certainly isn't a sign of strength or character. Ethics aside, I think some of Mag's business practices are deplorable and I can only hope that their motivation and attitude can bring them ultimately what they deserve.
Does might make right? NO
Does Mag make light? YES (just mediocre at best
)
As I stated once in a similar thread but then deleted:
Innovation, not Litigation.
- Don
PS. I deleted a few heart felt posts in the past regarding these issues as it was suggested that written comments could be used to Mag's benefit in legal proceedings. If Mag can take what I've written here and use it to their benefit, then F**K ME! Let the legal run amok take us down now and from the rubble perhaps we can start over with some basic fundamentals and ethics revisited.