FYI: ASA-Accugrade files new suit in US District Court

(IIikecoins) wrote in
:

In my opinion I would be worried if I was named in the lawsuit because
of the pigging backing effect that could take place by owners and
sellers of ACG graded coins. If these owners and sellers can prove
they lost money due to comments here. I would think they may have an
action and could piggy back the existing lawsuit if they could prove
financial damages. What do you think?

Tony

Be convenient to have a list of the stupid and unethical.

When was the last time you read a negative review in a US auto magazine?

I don't think it has a whole lot to do with fear of law suits. Most car
mags are dependant on ad money from the car companies. You see the same
thing with virtually all magazines that are dependant on ad money.

Consumer Reports often publishes reviews critical of products and companies,
and have on occasion been sued for it. Recently, a lawsuit against them was
dismissed and the plaintiff is now required to reimburse them for legal
costs:

http://tinyurl.com/6pznh

"mark" wrote in message
...
In my opinion I would be worried if I was named in the lawsuit
because of the
pigging backing effect that could take place by owners and sellers
of ACG
graded coins

Don't be.

If these owners and sellers can prove they lost money due to
comments here.

They can't. You also have to keep in mind that many of the coins
that were/are
in ACG slabs were owned by Hagar.


--
mark

All they have to do is convince a jury that they lost money due to
the actions by Mark and others.


On Mark's page

http://members.aol.com/prgrmr/pub/boycott.html

he says:

Do not buy any coins that have been encapsulated by Accugrade.
Post a message to the Usenet newsgroup rec.collecting.coins saying
you've joined the boycott.
Click here for a list of eBay sellers who sell Accugrade slabbed
coins: Please do not bid on their auctions!

Many boycotts are illegal, according to the Federal Trade
Commission:
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/illegal.htm

Boycotts. A group boycott -- an agreement among competitors not to
deal with another person or business -- violates the law if it is
used to force another party to pay higher prices.

Boycotts to prevent a firm from entering a market or to disadvantage
a competitor also are illegal. Recent cases involved a group of
physicians charged with using a boycott to prevent a managed care
organization from establishing a competing health care facility in
Virginia and retailers who used a boycott to force manufacturers to
limit sales through a competing catalog vendor.

Are boycotts for other purposes illegal? It depends on their effect
on competition and possible justifications. A group of California
auto dealers used a boycott to prevent a newspaper from telling
consumers how to use wholesale price information when shopping for
cars. The FTC proved that the boycott affected price competition and
had no reasonable justification.

the reimbursement issue is a special case because the lawsuit was filed in
CA.

With a few exceptions, if it had been filed anywhere else, even if the
defendant had won, the legal costs are still on the defendant.

"Larry Nash" wrote in message
...

When was the last time you read a negative review in a US auto magazine?

I don't think it has a whole lot to do with fear of law suits. Most car
mags are dependant on ad money from the car companies. You see the same
thing with virtually all magazines that are dependant on ad money.

Consumer Reports often publishes reviews critical of products and
companies, and have on occasion been sued for it. Recently, a lawsuit
against them was dismissed and the plaintiff is now required to reimburse
them for legal costs:

http://tinyurl.com/6pznh

In article ,
"Frank Provasek" wrote:


On Mark's page

http://members.aol.com/prgrmr/pub/boycott.html

he says:

Do not buy any coins that have been encapsulated by Accugrade.
Post a message to the Usenet newsgroup rec.collecting.coins saying
you've joined the boycott.
Click here for a list of eBay sellers who sell Accugrade slabbed
coins: Please do not bid on their auctions!

Many boycotts are illegal, according to the Federal Trade
Commission:
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/illegal.htm

Boycotts. A group boycott -- an agreement among competitors not to
deal with another person or business -- violates the law if it is
used to force another party to pay higher prices.

Boycotts to prevent a firm from entering a market or to disadvantage
a competitor also are illegal. Recent cases involved a group of
physicians charged with using a boycott to prevent a managed care
organization from establishing a competing health care facility in
Virginia and retailers who used a boycott to force manufacturers to
limit sales through a competing catalog vendor.

Are boycotts for other purposes illegal? It depends on their effect
on competition and possible justifications. A group of California
auto dealers used a boycott to prevent a newspaper from telling
consumers how to use wholesale price information when shopping for
cars. The FTC proved that the boycott affected price competition and
had no reasonable justification.


But clearly Mark's intention appears to be a move toward consumer
protection. How do your comments apply?

On 16 Jan 2005 21:01:00 GMT, (IIikecoins) wrote:

What do you think?

I think you're full of ****, troll.

--
K6AZ WEB PAGES

http://www.k6az.com/web_pages.htm

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:06:53 -0600, "Jorg Lueke" wrote:

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:05:29 -0600, Jim wrote:

Whether you like it or not or agree with it or not, if Accugrade can
show it was discussed about in an open public forum by prominent
numismatists in a way that could be construed to be seen as negative

and

Accugrade's profit went down,

and

it's competitor's went up during this time frame, this fits well within
what is called "pattern" in the legal world. If the pattern can be
demonstrated (and it does not take much) then grounds for a suit exist
and the next move is settlement or trial. Big companies such as
insurance companies, pharmacheutical firms, etc will choose a settlement
in which they pay out some sort of settlement benefit. They admit no
wrong and anyone in the class who takes compensation waives their right
to sue again forever.

The defendants save face, the lawyers get rich, the plaintiffs get a few
nickles. All the wiseguys win.

This definitely does not seem right. It would also invite civil action
any time there was a consumer review that was negative and reduced sales.
Granted, some companies may avoid lawsuits because the public perception
would be negative but I don't think you can viable sue people for talking
about a product. Did the makers of the Pinto get to sue?
If you make comments and have financial ties to a competitor then it would
be another matter entirely especially if that relationship was undisclosed.

I guess this company ought to sue all the people who complained. This company
was taking low speed DDR RAM, welding on heatsinks, and selling it as faster RAM.
Hmmm... sounds like slabbing an AU coin as MS and putting it up on eBay.

(By the way, it is highly suspected that the seller is the one posting the glowing reviews)

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller2870.html

--
K6AZ WEB PAGES

http://www.k6az.com/web_pages.htm

K6AZ or whatever your name is. I understand you have stress due to the lawsuit.
I hope you and your following make out OK! I am just a troll as you say so I
apologize for hitting a nerve.

Tony

Wolley asks (regarding Frank's post about Mark's boycott page):

But clearly Mark's intention appears to be a
move toward consumer protection. How do
your comments apply?

It doesn't- there is a good bit of enmity between Frank and Mark and I
firmly believe Frank's post was a jab at Mark. IMO, there was nothing
illegal about "Mark's" boycott (not as though it was his exclusively
anyway) and Frank either knows that and let his personal feelings get
the better of him or has allowed his feelings to blind him to what
should be obvious.

-Steve

"Wolley Segap" wrote in message
...


But clearly Mark's intention appears to be a move toward consumer
protection. How do your comments apply?

Consumer Reports has never called for a boycott of a product that
tested poorly,
or called people "proven frauds" or a "fishwife."