Maglite Sues Litepro

[beezaur]

Sadly, in my limited experience with lawyers, that's how it's worked. It's great when they are working for you, but what happens when you're the "other party" and correct about where you stand (or what you did, etc.).

It is funny. After I posted that I went to the post office to pick up my mail. A contractor associate of mine (I'm an engineer) stopped me to talk about the very same attorney mentioned above. The dealings they had were relayed to me as follows (I know this particular contractor to be honest, even when it hurts him). Let's call the contractor Joe.

Attorney: Hi, Joe, I have a job for you. Some appraisers have deemed a structure unsound, and it is hanging up my business deal. You know appraisers, they lie all the time; thy're in bed with the bank. I need you to straighten this out for me and write a letter stating that the structure is ok.

Joe: I'll take a look.

Joe takes a look, and coincidently I am at the site for another reason. He tells me the deal, and we both go to see the structure. It's dangerous -- so rotten that you can push your fingers into the wood. Neither of us could possibly sign off on the structure. Joe reports back to the attorney.

Joe: I can't sign off on that structure. It's rotten. Scott was there and he saw it too. I would love to be able to help you, but I can't. I'm sorry.

Attorney: Don't listen to that Scott. He's a crappy engineer and doesn't know what he's talking about. The structure is fine. All I need is one simple letter.

Joe: Sorry. We've known each other 20 years, and you've thrown a lot of business my way, but I can't do it.

Attorney: Well, you can either do this job for me or you can't. I don't know why you are putting me in this position. You know, I will have to stop recommending your services if you can't do this simple job for me.

Joe gets angry and hangs up.

I had heard the attorney making disparaging remarks about the contractor after that. He sent work to the contractor's competition. The competition arrived to do the same inspection later, and said the same thing. But by this time the attorney was out of contractors, so had to have the last guy rebuild the thing to make the deal go through.

This was a month or two ago, but it still bugged the contractor, so he spoke with me about it. Both he and I were honest in our dealings with the attorney, and both of us were unfairly maligned by him. The attorney claims to not understand what our problem is, but he doesn'y hold it against us. He simply said we weren't up to the job.

Like I said, this attorney is a nice guy. People generally like him (as long as they don't know how he deals). He does charitable work, and helps people out in their times of need. He is friendly and hard-working and all the rest. And he sleeps soundly at night, knowing that he is fighting the good fight, providing valuable services for his clients.

I have read the article about Maglica, and I have a hard time hating him too. That kind of philosophy is not consistent with a "screw the world" attitude, so I am inclinied to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I can see how his legal team can be up to something completely different.

Scott

 

[Robban]

This is why I have a hard time hating Maglite.

Yeah, that absolutely outweighs their outrageous lawsuits. Making small companies, American and others, stop selling their lights and hindering progress on the market just because they can't keep up is just fine as long as they don't outsource their production. I totally agree, no doubt, yup.

 

[cary]

Joe takes a look, and coincidently I am at the site for another reason. He tells me the deal, and we both go to see the structure. It's dangerous -- so rotten that you can push your fingers into the wood. Neither of us could possibly sign off on the structure. Joe reports back to the attorney.

Joe: I can't sign off on that structure. It's rotten. Scott was there and he saw it too. I would love to be able to help you, but I can't. I'm sorry.

Attorney: Don't listen to that Scott. He's a crappy engineer and doesn't know what he's talking about. The structure is fine. All I need is one simple letter.

Joe: Sorry. We've known each other 20 years, and you've thrown a lot of business my way, but I can't do it.

Attorney: Well, you can either do this job for me or you can't. I don't know why you are putting me in this position. You know, I will have to stop recommending your services if you can't do this simple job for me.

Joe gets angry and hangs up.

I had heard the attorney making disparaging remarks about the contractor after that. He sent work to the contractor's competition. The competition arrived to do the same inspection later, and said the same thing. But by this time the attorney was out of contractors, so had to have the last guy rebuild the thing to make the deal go through.


Like I said, this attorney is a nice guy. People generally like him (as long as they don't know how he deals). He does charitable work, and helps people out in their times of need. He is friendly and hard-working and all the rest. And he sleeps soundly at night, knowing that he is fighting the good fight, providing valuable services for his clients.

Scott

I'm sorry but that attorney is not a nice guy. He may be friendly but he is obviously looking out for only his interests and could care less if you or anyone else is harmed by his actions.

I am an attorney and represent contractors and developers as part of my business. I would never ask someone to sign off on something they don't feel comfortable with. By doing that, not only am I asking them to assume unecessary liability, but also asking them to risk their reputation as well as my own reputation. It isn't worth it. I would be willing to bet if you asked other attorneys about this guy their response would be lukewarm at best, and in private conversation would be that he is a sleezeball. Trust me, in this business (as well as many others) your reputation in the community is your most important asset. Some guys don't get that.

 

[Tesla]

I'm neutral on the issue until I find out more than hearsay, but it is everyone's right in this country to litigate if they believe they're wronged. Maglite is still an American company and within their rights to do so if they believe they have a basis for bringing action. As to the alleged "frivolous" nature of the Maglite actions, the courts do not take that lightly, despite what many seem to believe, so if they're winning it's because they either have right or better lawyers (or both) on their side.

Here's a link to something interesting recently regarding Mag & one of their patents.

http://promotetheprogress.com/archives/patents_generally/

 

[cheapo]

They arent what killed arc are they? They may sue litepro, but I tell you one thing, their lights are inferior to those of litepro... and to those of Arc.

-David

 

[beezaur]

cary,

You could well be right about that guy. [edit: that he is not well respected by those who are familiar with him. It is troubling that so many people consider him a "good guy" though.] I should not rush to judge all attorneys. There are plenty of crooked engineers and contractors too. I apologize for making the generalization.

The thing that frosts me about the whole situation is the way everyone doing an honest job has to be constantly on the lookout for attacks. Flashlight makers, contractors, pretty much everybody. The system is out of control to allow all these suits.

Scott

 

[LowBat]

In reference to the attorney, I've worked for people like this; nice guys on the surface but they keep a knife to your back in the event you don't play ball when they need you to do their dirty work. I've also seen what happens to those that do play ball; they are favored up until the day blame needs to be placed and out the door they go because they were the ones who did the dirty act.

 

[tmf2]

You guys dont get it...

>sues anyone that has a product that might compete with them. period.
>it doesnt matter if they are right, they will bankrupt them with court cost.


This same method was used on our small vending company. The purchasing
agent of a large NW wood products company decided she wanted to get rid of our services and replace us with another vending company.........her cousin. Well we had a contract stating it would renew annually unless either party in writing 30 days prior of the renewal had an issue with the service. Thus the contract just renewed itself. The guy who signed the contract retired a year earlier. The wood products company claimed the contract was not valid because the manager that signed it was retired. They laughed and said see you in court. They have very very deep pockets my boss refused to fight even though the location brought 70k per year. He got scared................Now he wants to try to get the location again.....go figuire, some folks never learn. We were in the right but it didnt matter.

 

[zapper]

Maglica is hiding behind a wall of words (and laws) instead of standing behind his product. If he kept inovating lights and features he would not have to worry about suing other companies. He could save the legal fee's and put them into R&D and production. Maybe even his personnel. Now that would be innovative! I can't say I've seen a new feature or product from Mag in very long time, even years. I would call this cowardice. There is no shortage of people buying his lights and that has nothing to do with the competition. It is a good product and people recognize this. Has he sued Brinkman, Eveready or Surefire? Probably not, because he knows they have money as well and can wait him out and he doesn't have a leg to stand on normally. I don't care where bad business is conducted, it's still bad business. What goes around comes around and I hope his little world comes crashing down on his head.

P.S. I wish his employees no harm and the best of luck as I think they do have a basically good product of which I am happy to own many. Hopefully he will just change his business practices a little for the better. Good luck LitePro, I just bought one and love it!

 

[thesurefire]

I would like to see mag try and sue either Surefire or Dorcy, the two biggest light manufactures I can think of. 10 bucks says surefire would win a lawsuit over mag. Mag may have the funding, but surefire has military contracts

 

[shutterbug]

Yeah sure the system works.....I bet you think OJ was innocent too. What fantasy world are you living in?

I'm neutral on the issue until I find out more than hearsay, but it is everyone's right in this country to litigate if they believe they're wronged. Maglite is still an American company and within their rights to do so if they believe they have a basis for bringing action. As to the alleged "frivolous" nature of the Maglite actions, the courts do not take that lightly, despite what many seem to believe, so if they're winning it's because they either have right or better lawyers (or both) on their side.

Here's a link to something interesting recently regarding Mag & one of their patents.

http://promotetheprogress.com/archives/patents_generally/

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

I went to Pocketlights.com and looked at the Litepro Spitfire. I can't see ANY possible link to a M*glite, except perhaps that they both make light.

If that's the case, how can ANY other flashlights exist?

Probably because they have enough money/lawyers!!!

 

[TORCH_BOY]

Corporate Greed?

 

[Raven]

Yeah, that absolutely outweighs their outrageous lawsuits. Making small companies, American and others, stop selling their lights and hindering progress on the market just because they can't keep up is just fine as long as they don't outsource their production. I totally agree, no doubt, yup.

If you reached any further you could touch the moon.

I wasn't even defending the lawsuit, so rant in someone else's direction.

 

[bullinchinashop]

I would say BOYCOTT!!!!!!!!! but how many of US buy mucklite? I can add these megalomaniacal atavistic troglodytes to the same list Sony is on.
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12639

 

[dano]

Closed. Obviously, a logical discussion about Maglite has failed in this thread.

--dan