Chung, You obviously have an educated opinion of the marketplace these companies are operating in and I appreciate your input. I disagree, however, with a couple of your points.
"(The litigation is will only affect the placement and route tools and nothing else.)"
If CDN is successful, they will not only obtain an injunction preventing the sale of the specific products, but a damage award as well. The damages will be all of the profits lost by CDN as a result of the breach of the copywrite. Of course that may be many years away (as opposed to the injunction which may be days away), but then again they may settle for a sum sooner. In addition, the senior management and some of their technical expertise may go to jail.(although I suspect they will get some form of suspended sentence...isn't it odd that "white collar" crime, which usually involves so much more money and damage, is perceived as requiring less punishment than petty crimes) These legal events go far beyond the restiction on the sale of one product. Keep in mind that in the litigation, AVNT has indicated the injunction would be devestating. Obviously, part of the desire to diversify, is to lessen the risks associated with being dependent on only one product area. From TMA's perspective, though, they could be dragged down in the crossfire.
"AVNT is really the only company that came out with new and improved technology" Is their technology based on the stolen code, or is it entirely new?
You seemed to indicate that CDN and AVNT are really the only credible players. If that is indeed the case, don't you think that intimidating/educating the marketplace will benefit CDN at AVNT's expense. I agree that in our capitalist economy, competition is healthy and should be encouraged. Competition, however, must take place within the rules (ie the boundaries of the law). If AVNT's business was built with stolen merchandise, the principals involved in the theft should all go to jail, and those individuals or companies that knowingly bought stolen product should also be sactioned. I can't imagine that if I was given the responsibility to decide whether to buy CDN or an AVNT product, and I knew of the circumstances under which AVNT developed their product, and was also aware of actual criminal charges against the president of the company, that I would decide to buy their products. Those companies that do so are clearly lacking any ethical boundries. They are knowingly dealing in stolen property and they should be ashamed of themselves. Healthy competition is great, theft is not. Quite apart from the moral argument, however, is the business point, that these customers are taking on legal risks in dealing with AVNT. Costello needs to make an example of one of them. Just my opinion.
Ron |
