[stevebrot]

I guess it depends on what data really shows and how many people would actually sign up for the lawsuit.

The data are sparse enough that determining class membership (different from those opting to participate) may prove difficult.


Steve

[Larrymc]

That would be a contingent fee agreement. Pro bono is shorthand for pro bono publico ‘for the public good’; If a lawyer takes a case pro bono there is no charge for the representation. I'ts something lawyers do on occasion, usually for indigent persons but sometimes as a favor to someone.

Yep, my bad! My point was that the Plaintiff probably won't be out any money either way.

[clackers]

Ian, I certainly hope your attempt at helpfulness doesn't contribute to Ricoh/Pentax withdrawing sales of Pentax cameras from the North American market as a result of excessive awards. Where is your dog in this fight?

Well, it's with the right outcome.

If Ricoh have behaved legally and morally about this issue ... that it really is just an acceptable minority of those entry level cameras not engineered to last as long as their K-5/K-3 siblings, and that they addressed the issue when it became clear, and that the plaintiff has no case, we'll learn about that.

And if that turns out to be not true, perhaps we ought to rethink our own attitudes ... whether we should withdraw our own sales.

So, my loyalty is to fellow Pentax shooters like you, Larry, not to the company. Fair's fair, Ricoh's responsibility is to its shareholders before us, anyway.

I'd like facts to clear its name, or alternatively, for it to be outed for any strategy of continuing to sell defective products, with compensation for those affected.

If economically, they can't afford to comply with legal obligations in various countries - they need to break the law to survive - I think they should withdraw from markets.

[clackers]

Yep, my bad! My point was that the Plaintiff probably won't be out any money either way.

But if the plaintiff loses, they may be required to pay Ricoh's legal fees, or a share of it.

'No win, no fee' only applies for your own lawyers! You can lose your house paying for the other guy's team.

---

Last edited by clackers; 07-05-2020 at 06:14 PM.

[bladerunner6]

In reality, repairs ultimately cost the manufacturers close to nothing. The consumers of future releases foot the bill through increased prices.
If the next model whatchamacallit is scheduled to wholesale for $100.00 with 5 million units produced but the company lost 5 million dollars in unexpected repairs on the current model whatchamacallit the new one will wholesale for $101.00 instead of $100.00.
They may lose some sales on the new one from jumping ship, but there's also the possibility of that being offset by the other guy's customers jumping to them due to similar issues elsewhere.
The basic premise here is very simple. Ultimately it's the end consumers (known also as the de facto QC department) who take the loss.

That is an interesting hypothetical concept but repairs do cost the manufacturer.

For example, my Ford Focus has at least five repairs involving the transmission that were all covered under recalls. At least one of them also involved giving me a loaner. (The car has been such a citrus item remembering all the problems is tedious).

Plus I have had the door handles recalled and at least one other issue that involved a recall.

These cars have been very problematic.

Ford reaches settlement surrounding faulty Fiesta, Focus transmissions

When you have hundreds of thousands of cars racking up thousands in repairs each with who knows how many people eager to leave the brand because of the failures.

There are at least a few other choices for almost every category of car Ford makes. That makes leaving the brand very easy. I know I will.

When there is such a loss and so much damage done to the brand you can’t just raise prices and hope people won’t care or notice.

Plus this rolls down hill. All this bad publicity can hurt sales in other ways.

[monochrome]

But if the plaintiff loses, they may be required to pay Ricoh's legal fees, or a share of it.

'No win, no fee' only applies for your own lawyers! You can lose your house paying for the other guy's team.

Not in the United States.

Tort Lsw here is just weird. Plaintiff Counsel on contingent takes all the risk, but Defendant pays its own defense costs, win or lose. Defendant can sue for costs, but usually only wins that outcome in the most egregious cases. Defendant is motivated to settle even a spurious claim to reduce the cost of defending itself. Tort attorneys know this and exploit it. It is essentially a form of legal extortion.

Despite your admirable moral position, protecting and compensating the Class (consumers in this case) for loss has little to do with Class Action lawsuits.

[Larrymc]

But if the plaintiff loses, they may be required to pay Ricoh's legal fees, or a share of it.

'No win, no fee' only applies for your own lawyers! You can lose your house paying for the other guy's team.

Not true in the U.S.

Ooops, I see @monochrome has addressed this already.

---

Last edited by Larrymc; 07-05-2020 at 07:07 PM.

[clackers]

So, my email:

"Hi,

Advice: your action needs to be filed not against 'Ricoh USA' in Pennsylvania (a photocopier supplier), rather 'Ricoh Imaging USA' in New Jersey, the importer of Pentax cameras from Japan. They are different companies.

Regards,
Ian"

Has been responded to with a simple 'Thank You' from one of the addresses listed in the filing.

Perhaps this gets acted on and saves both parties from a futile first day in court. Or maybe I'm dealing with the chaotic Bob Odenkirk character from 'Better Call Saul'.

[Kunzite]

As poorly done as this lawsuit seems to be, with guessing and very little research, I'm still on the side of consumers versus corporations.

We should avoid thinking in sides, "us" versus "them". Impartiality is basically gone.

Well, it's with the right outcome.

If Ricoh have behaved legally and morally about this issue ... that it really is just an acceptable minority of those entry level cameras not engineered to last as long as their K-5/K-3 siblings, and that they addressed the issue when it became clear, and that the plaintiff has no case, we'll learn about that.

And if that turns out to be not true, perhaps we ought to rethink our own attitudes ... whether we should withdraw our own sales.

So, my loyalty is to fellow Pentax shooters like you, Larry, not to the company. Fair's fair, Ricoh's responsibility is to its shareholders before us, anyway.

I'd like facts to clear its name, or alternatively, for it to be outed for any strategy of continuing to sell defective products, with compensation for those affected.

If economically, they can't afford to comply with legal obligations in various countries - they need to break the law to survive - I think they should withdraw from markets.

The "right outcome" means a serious impact on all NA customers.
And that would have nothing to do with legal obligations, but with a sudden increase in operating costs, in a most inconvenient time.

What you should expect, perhaps, is for the lawsuit to be either dismissed or for Ricoh Imaging to settle out of court, as others explained.
There will be no "facts to clear its name"; and even if the trial would go on and Ricoh Imaging not found guilty, I have good reasons to believe that won't be easily accepted... see the talks in this thread, about planned obsolescence.
Not as long as it's "us" versus "them".

[clackers]

We should avoid thinking in sides, "us" versus "them". Impartiality is basically gone.

Well, that's what the judges are for.

And it doesn't have to be us vs them, either, a class settlement can be negotiated before court. Let's leave that to Ricoh's management to sort out. If they want to contest with evidence of stats and memos and the other side have nothing, that's up to them.

To be honest, I'd support one into SDM as well. That was on some premium lenses, not beginners stuff.

[Kunzite]

Well, that's what the judges are for.

You appears to trust a foreign country's justice system a lot

And it doesn't have to be us vs them, either, a class settlement can be negotiated before court. Let's leave that to Ricoh's management to sort out. If they want to contest with evidence of stats and memos and the other side have nothing, that's up to them.

It is, when one takes sides.
Lawyers getting money through a lawsuit or settlement makes no difference.

To be honest, I'd support one into SDM as well. That was on some premium lenses, not beginners stuff.

Yes, that was about components chosen by Pentax Corporation, with Hoya Corporation not properly acting on fixing the customers' lenses.
Ricoh Imaging is precisely the one to take the blame, and now is the exact moment to do it, for maximum effect
The lawyers would make more money, but we'd all lose.

[Rondec]

Well, that's what the judges are for.

And it doesn't have to be us vs them, either, a class settlement can be negotiated before court. Let's leave that to Ricoh's management to sort out. If they want to contest with evidence of stats and memos and the other side have nothing, that's up to them.

To be honest, I'd support one into SDM as well. That was on some premium lenses, not beginners stuff.

I don't have a lot of confidence in the legal process in these sorts of cases and I don't think they help consumers and aren't driven by a desire to do so. I think they are about enriching lawyers. A situation where every purchaser of a K-50 gets 60 dollars and a lawyer gets 40 dollars feels like a pretty hollow "victory."

[clackers]

Lawyers getting money through a lawsuit or settlement makes no difference.

Of course, my position is that those lawyers get their plaintiffs - fellow forum members included, Kunzite - money in compensation or a fix. The people you would deny that to are responsible for many posts on the issue, including a poll where one way of interpreting it is that it's a third of all owners.

So, I'd say the lawyers, sadly, are necessary brokers. Your fellow Pentax owners need them if the corporation is to be held to account. It shouldn't have come to this. Part of the filing claims Pentaxians' complaints went unheeded. And if some were dealt with quietly, why not all?

Yes, that was about components chosen by Pentax Corporation, with Hoya Corporation not properly acting on fixing the customers' lenses.
Ricoh Imaging is precisely the one to take the blame, and now is the exact moment to do it, for maximum effect

When you buy a company hoping to make a profit 'down the road', fair's fair, you don't just get their assets and current customers, you get all their liabilities as well.

I've said I'm on the consumer's side. Now, you know I love you, Kunzite, but you claim you're neutral, you're not taking sides (except anti-lawyer as a profession, seemingly).

But read all your last posts to me. De facto, you are on the corporation's side.

[clackers]

I don't have a lot of confidence in the legal process in these sorts of cases and I don't think they help consumers and aren't driven by a desire to do so. I think they are about enriching lawyers. A situation where every purchaser of a K-50 gets 60 dollars and a lawyer gets 40 dollars feels like a pretty hollow "victory."

I agree, it's terrible that it's come to this. If the judge finds Ricoh did nothing knowing about the fault, we all pay more for Pentax products in the future to make up the loss. Or Ricoh gets sick and tired of being in a declining consumer camera market and exits it, concentrating on industrial imaging.

It's perhaps fortunate for Ricoh, but unfortunate for a lot of our members, that owners who purchased prior to 2014, and models like the K-500, K-S1 and K-S2 would receive nothing at all. They have been left out of the plaintiff's filing.

[bxf]

But read all your last posts to me. De facto, you are on the corporation's side.

I don't think he's necessarily on the corporation's side. Rather, he's on the side that does not endanger RI's somewhat fragile current state.