I made the claim about in-house invention and third party replacement parts (not the litigation part though). From my perspective both these claims are hearsay and I have edited my original post to make that explicit. I find I am very interested in finding out if these claims are true as well. I was trying to express my opinion that an end user's options are limited when trying to make a change to a Mag and I did not think twice about the two statements until I was challenged by Pete. Thanks Pete.
I will try to do a web search to find out where I read these statements but even if I do succeed they would still likely be hearsay unless they come from maglite.com. Edit - So far I have had no luck with my web search.
Edit - Actually maintaining control on who can market maglite replacement parts makes sense to me from the perspective of quality control (not to mention income). Of course I was thinking of stippled/textured/statistical reflectors and other unique replacement parts.
Yet another edit - I removed these statements from my original post because I can not find a reference to substantiate them (not to mention that I was not very clear on what I was trying to say - in other words I was shooting my mouth off
). Just to clarify though: I did not make a claim on after-market items. My claim was on 'marketing replacement parts'. I think that is a totally different beast.
