[cfraz]

...
A lot of European and Asian companies very much dislike the US market ...

IIRC, a Pentax/Hoya executive stated that very thing a while back. I can't find the reference, hence the IIRC disclaimer, but it struck me very odd at the time to publicly dis one of your customers.

... because of its grey market resale options for excess stock and overall price-sensitive, consumer discount philosophy. In fact, they hate it. Some (LG and Samsung lately) use it to their advantage when they can, but others (Nikon) intensely dislike sacrificing margins in the US arena.

On the other hand, it seems Nikon and Canon both have made the effort to understand the North American market and successfully exploit it. Not so with Pentax.

[Class A]

In the law a corporation can say something:

Whether or not a corporation can be treated under the law as a person is completely irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

If you put tape over the mouths of all Pentax employees and tied their hands to their backs, what would the company, your "legal entity" be able to say? Nothing. A company is always be represented by people. Therefore, if "the company lied", a person must have lied.

Read the post by vonBaloney again. You cannot argue with that, even if you are trying as hard as you do.

Bringing in a WW2 reference is akin to invoking Godwin's Law and undercuts your ability to look at the facts:

Even if I had acted according to Godwin's Law -- which I haven't -- that would not be a reason to dismiss my argument. Interestingly, you did not try to refute the argument itself but only tried to dismiss it by putting a label on it (inappropriately, as well). Furthermore, having my "ability to look at facts undercut" would not be a consequence of my "invoking Godwin's Law".

I'm done with this discussion now.

You may try to continue to spread your speculations as facts and pretend that you can simultaneously avoid calling Ned Bunnell a liar. It doesn't work but I'm done with trying to make you come to a consistent viewpoint.

[Kunzite]

I keep falling asleep as I read these so I may have missed something.

Is that why I get the idea that at least half the posts here are confusing the three entities:

* Pentax Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation - an American firm led by Ned and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ....

* Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company (PRIC), Ltd., a Japanese business and a global subsidiary of ....

* Ricoh Company, Ltd., a rather large Japanese business with a lot more on its mind than cameras?

In short PRIC, Ltd. may give Ned a lot of help. That's "help" as in "We're from headquarters and we're here to help you." - words that can strike fear into the heart of a remote manager.

But I don't expect Ricoh to give much, if any, thought to UPP. That's why they created PRIC, Ltd. And I'm certain that the managers at PRIC, Ltd. have no trouble giving Ned coaching on his USA dealer strategy, if only to approve his plan.

So Ned may have not been instructed on this subject by Ricoh (seems perfectly reasonable) but I am confident that he consulted with PRIC, Ltd.

Did this clear anything up or am I just digging a deeper hole?

Stop making sense, you're on a forum!
Indeed; there's no reason for Ricoh to bother with all the details - they have their own people at PRIC to take care of those. I don't see it much different than what any major shareholder would be interested in.
PRIC now is owned, but not micromanaged by Ricoh.
PRIAC and Ned seems to enjoy a certain freedom (as I've said, otherwise we'd see Japanese people at PRIAC). We don't know, but probably much more than many here believes. Maybe the consulting stuff was only about a bigger budget and getting ready to sell more products.
OTOH, it seems very unlikely that the Japanese, from Japan would come up with all the implementation plans for the American market, with PRIAC only following orders. It's ridiculous.

In other words:
- Do not try to find out who lied. That's impossible... instead, only try to realize the truth.
- What truth?
- There is no lie.

Aristophanes: Ned lying because PRIC's CEO has an iPhone; wow, now I believe!

[Aristophanes]

If you put tape over the mouths of all Pentax employees and tied their hands to their backs, what would the company, your "legal entity" be able to say? Nothing. A company is always be represented by people. Therefore, if "the company lied", a person must have lied.

Comparing corporate officer to military officers and the meaning and weight of their words, and now tying them up under duress and then using the "legal entity" defense....wow!

If an officer of a company speaks their mind about a product, they are speaking for the company. Period. They are fungible, even Steve Jobs.

So I am not going to infer that "Ned" lied, but that Pentax issued covering statements. Leave the familiarity of names out of it and it makes sense.

Making this an issue of "Ned's" personal morality for his corporate actions using wartime criminal analogies is a tactic I find reprehensible.

Shame on you.

[jmg257]

OK - US federal agents raid a factory of a guitar manufacturing company and confiscate pallets of rosewood blanks, and numerous documents.

After the raid the CEO of US Guitars states on his public forum "I want to be quite clear that US Guitars was not in any way involved with buying illegal Rosewood".

And then it is proven as fact that US Guitars did indeed buy illegal Rosewood, and the CEO knew about the purchases, and that they were illegal.


It is your opinion that the CEO did not lie...US Guitars did? And that the 2 - the CEO & the corporation, should not be viewed as separate...that the CEO personally should not be identified as lying?

Seems like a rather strange stance to take. One most people would likely not agree with. If presented with this situation, I would identify the CEO a liar in a heartbeat, and not feel bad (or wrong) about it in the least. You want to add in that US Guitars lied too? Fine. They lied exactly because the CEO lied.

Edit: I wonder how the CEO would be treated in a court of law...if he made such a statement under oath. Think he personally could be charged with perjury? Or the entire company?

[Rondec]

OK - US federal agents raid a factory of a guitar manufacturing company and confiscate pallets of rosewood blanks, and numerous documents.

After the raid the CEO of US Guitars states on his public forum "I want to be quite clear that US Guitars was not in any way involved with buying illegal Rosewood".

And then it is proven as fact that US Guitars did indeed buy illegal Rosewood, and the CEO knew about the purchases, and that they were illegal.


It is your opinion that the CEO did not lie...US Guitars did? And that the 2 - the CEO & the corporation, should not be viewed as separate...that the CEO personally should not be identified as lying?

Seems like a rather strange stance to take. One most people would likely not agree with. If presented with this situation, I would identify the CEO a liar in a heartbeat, and not feel bad (or wrong) about it in the least. You want to add in that US Guitars lied too? Fine. They lied exactly because the CEO lied.

Edit: I wonder how the CEO would be treated in a court of law...if he made such a statement under oath. Think he personally could be charged with perjury? Or the entire company?

I don't understand why people are taking this to the level of criminal activity.

A company raised prices on a product it sells. The CEO of the company (which is actually a subsidiary of a Japanese firm) took responsibility for the decision and said that the buck stopped with him (even though it probably didn't). After a few weeks, with no particular fan fare, the decision was reversed and the prices returned to close to where they were in the beginning.

Where is the criminal intent on anyone's part? This is Ned taking responsibility for a corporate decision. End of story. As I said before, the lie was that he had authority to change prices, when I am sure that authority completely lies in the purvey of Japan.

[Aristophanes]

OK - US federal agents raid a factory of a guitar manufacturing company and confiscate pallets of rosewood blanks, and numerous documents.

After the raid the CEO of US Guitars states on his public forum "I want to be quite clear that US Guitars was not in any way involved with buying illegal Rosewood".

And then it is proven as fact that US Guitars did indeed buy illegal Rosewood, and the CEO knew about the purchases, and that they were illegal.


It is your opinion that the CEO did not lie...US Guitars did? And that the 2 - the CEO & the corporation, should not be viewed as separate...that the CEO personally should not be identified as lying?

Seems like a rather strange stance to take. One most people would likely not agree with. If presented with this situation, I would identify the CEO a liar in a heartbeat, and not feel bad (or wrong) about it in the least. You want to add in that US Guitars lied too? Fine. They lied exactly because the CEO lied.

Edit: I wonder how the CEO would be treated in a court of law...if he made such a statement under oath. Think he personally could be charged with perjury? Or the entire company?

A corporate officer speaks for their entity until no longer under contract.

Watch Robocop 2

[jmg257]

I don't understand why people are taking this to the level of criminal activity.
.

It's just an example...for this specific discussion about Ned...of an officer of a company making a statement and that statement and the actual facts making him a liar. Legality is not an issue, and was not even being considered as a part of the real events.

[jmg257]

A corporate officer speaks for their entity until no longer under contract.

Watch Robocop 2

Naa - 1 was enough!

Curious though - could a corporate officer face perjury charges in the example I mentioned? If so - I wonder who (what?) would be named as the defendant at the arraignment.

Edit: Apparently so.

"The CEOs of the seven largest U.S. tobacco companies are called to testify before the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health & the Environment. The chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is incredulous that the executives still refuse to acknowledge their products are harmful – even as they admit they wouldn’t want their own children to smoke. The hearing is a public relations debacle for the tobacco industry and leads the Justice Department to launch perjury investigations against the executives."

[Kunzite]

Watch Robocop 2

Oh, such arguments... this is getting better and better!
Now, where I put that popcorn?

As I said before, the lie was that he had authority to change prices, when I am sure that authority completely lies in the purvey of Japan.

How one can be sure without knowing?

[Class A]

... leads the Justice Department to launch perjury investigations against the executives."

<sarcasm>
Oh, no!
This is oh so wrong.
Hopefully Aristophanes can talk some sense into the Justice Department.

Surely only the company -- never an executive -- could have done something wrong.

And only the company (the abstract entity) can be locked away in jail -- never an executive.

Because when you act on behalf of your company, you are free to do whatever you want, the company takes the blame and will go into jail for you, if necessary.

Great, isn't it?!
</sarcasm>

[Quicksand]

Hey Adam! I have an idea for a new tagline for the site:

PentaxForums.com - where reason and perspective go to die!

(Actually, now that I think about it, that tagline is probably well suited for the Entire Internet.)

[Blue]

Oh, such arguments... this is getting better and better!
Now, where I put that popcorn?


How one can be sure without knowing?

Better check. Mayor Bloomberg may have banned popcorn in NYC.

[VoiceOfReason]

I will wait and see how cheaply I can get an 18-135 wr.

[ElJamoquio]

Naa - 1 was enough!

Curious though - could a corporate officer face perjury charges in the example I mentioned? If so - I wonder who (what?) would be named as the defendant at the arraignment.

I've been told that part of the fallout of the Enron debacle was that law(s?) were passed making corporate officers personally responsible for (some?) corporate actions.

As you can see I'm not really willing to do the research to look it up and prove/disprove, so take with a big grain of salt.