Horological Meandering

CaliforniaJed
[Purist]
5166

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Interesting.

SJX, thanks.  I've made a few notes below.  I don't think we're fully engaging, though.  Your arguments seem largely in favor of the free market.  I'm not necessarily opposed.  I merely wanted to present, in the abstract, potential public policy rationale in favor of robust copyright and trademark protection with resect to parallel importation of goods.

The regulation of domestic policy should be one for governments. If Omega exports direct to a foreign market, then it is its responsibility to ensure foreign requirements are met. If a middleman exports and neglects to meet these requirements, then it is the job of the importing country to stop such imports and punish if necessary. To use the converse logic,  if arms are smuggled into a particular country, the traffickers are nabbed, not the armaments makers. But in any event, the armament maker, or the non-compliant consumer products manufacturer, faces a potential public backlash through no fault of its own.

Regardless of what a company wants to export and what it wants specific consumers in a particular country to see or buy, the final verdict rests with the government of the importing country.  So if the government okays it and the free market dictates that there is a demand for that particular product, and it is sold legally and not stolen or counterfeit, why should it be stopped? That it is sold "legally" and "not counterfeit" is not really the point.  If its import was not authorized, the product is very close to counterfeit, particularly if it was designed for another market.  That's not the case with Omega, but I asked that we set aside the case at hand and consider the public policy.

Manufacturers still can tailor products for specific territories. If parallel imports are still happening in that case, it would mean that the tailored products are only tailorered for a portion of demand, leaving a substantial enough demand to make parallel imports viable. So that perhaps means the tailor isn't getting his measurements right. Perhaps, but the tailor operates at his own peril in a free market, and if he neglects his measurements, the market will punish him.

It would seem unreasonable to put the onus on the manufacturer to ensure that all products it makes end up in the country for which they are originally intended. For large companies making untraceable, low value products in huge volumes that would be practically impossible. With respect to consumer product safety, in the US, the onus is typically on the manufacturer as well as the importer.

In fact, Costco selling Omega watches means that Omega's network is flawed. There is not mention of the watches being stolen or fake, which means they are original Omega watches that entered the official distribution chain before falling through the cracks along the way. Omega suing Costco has a whiff of the pot calling the kettle chromatically challenged. Agree!