I have no problem whatsoever with a retailer or other vendor charging whatever they want to charge. Their margin is their business.
It is only when those retailers collude with manufacturers and distributors to control the pricing of the product by attempting to prevent others from competing with them on price, thereby denying me as a consumer the right to decide whether their mark-up is justified or not (by voting with my wallet), a practice that is a per-se violation of the law, that I object.
It is only when those retailers further collude with manufacturers in an attempt to make those who DO manage to "go around" these blocks "sorry" by refusing warranty service or even refusing to work on the product at all, or by attempting to restrict access to service parts and manuals for the explicit purpose of attemping to destroy the value of such "unauthorized" product sales, all of which is ALSO illegal, that I object.
Oh, by the way, before you take a cheap shot at me because I "used to own" a business, you might consider that I'm retired and 39. It seems that I didn't do oh-so-badly with that business, does it not?
I fully understand a "labor of love"; I did it myself from time to time. But to whine and cry that such justifies unlawful price restraint is an outrage. During those times that I engaged in such, I did so because (1) I liked it, and (2) I foresaw my efforts paying off in the future - it was an investment, and like all investments, had an element of risk.
Never once did I conspire with a manufacturer, distributor or other retailer in an attempt to control pricing in the marketplace. On the contrary - I took on manufacturers and distributors frequently, came very close to actually suing a couple of them (with all the attendant legal costs entailed in preparing to file said suit), and was engaged in a business with over 100 competitors in my local market in a cut-throat attempt to win by providing a superior product and service at a lower price to the customer.
Mike's complaint is similar to a bank (or liquor store) robber arguing that he shouldn't go to jail because he has six kids to feed, so he had to break the law to obtain food for his children.
It is only when those retailers collude with manufacturers and distributors to control the pricing of the product by attempting to prevent others from competing with them on price, thereby denying me as a consumer the right to decide whether their mark-up is justified or not (by voting with my wallet), a practice that is a per-se violation of the law, that I object.
It is only when those retailers further collude with manufacturers in an attempt to make those who DO manage to "go around" these blocks "sorry" by refusing warranty service or even refusing to work on the product at all, or by attempting to restrict access to service parts and manuals for the explicit purpose of attemping to destroy the value of such "unauthorized" product sales, all of which is ALSO illegal, that I object.
Oh, by the way, before you take a cheap shot at me because I "used to own" a business, you might consider that I'm retired and 39. It seems that I didn't do oh-so-badly with that business, does it not?
I fully understand a "labor of love"; I did it myself from time to time. But to whine and cry that such justifies unlawful price restraint is an outrage. During those times that I engaged in such, I did so because (1) I liked it, and (2) I foresaw my efforts paying off in the future - it was an investment, and like all investments, had an element of risk.
Never once did I conspire with a manufacturer, distributor or other retailer in an attempt to control pricing in the marketplace. On the contrary - I took on manufacturers and distributors frequently, came very close to actually suing a couple of them (with all the attendant legal costs entailed in preparing to file said suit), and was engaged in a business with over 100 competitors in my local market in a cut-throat attempt to win by providing a superior product and service at a lower price to the customer.
Mike's complaint is similar to a bank (or liquor store) robber arguing that he shouldn't go to jail because he has six kids to feed, so he had to break the law to obtain food for his children.