Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]SthRosner@aol.com wrote: > People are missing the point here. John is not missing the point here. > > Erwin has declared repeatedly that his evaluation of Leica cameras and > particularly of Leica lenses and his writing about them is entirely objective > and that he is independent and free from any influence from Leica. > > Leica Camera AG has provided him with confidential information about negative > qualities of the new Leica M7, defects if you will, that Leica is in the > process of addressing. He writes an evaluation of the new Leica M7 THAT, > BECAUSE OF HIS REPUTATION, HE KNOWS WILL BE WIDELY READ AND RELIED UPON BY > LEICA PHOTOGRAPHERS AROUND THE WORLD, that omits any mention of the defect or > the solution to the problem, expected by Photokina this autumn. It is well known that the M6 rangefinder 'whites out' under certain conditions. That this condition would continue to exist in the M7 is hardly any surprise. We don't know with respect to what Erwin wrote what might have been revealed subject to non-disclosure and the terms of any non-disclosure agreements. > > > I am a business lawyer. In the course of over 40 years of law practice, I > have prepared dozens of non-disclosure agreements for clients and have > reviewed dozens for clients who were about to be employed as senior > executives. They differ broadly from the "non-disclosure" agreements a > manufacturer imposes on photo or automobile magazines regarding reviews. The > latter simply state that we are telling you about this product and, > occasionally, giving advance copies of photos, in advance of the product's > release based upon your promise not to say or disclose anything UNTIL THE > RELEASE DATE. Relevance? Did you prepare or review any agreement with respect to or related to the subject of this email? You are implying that Erwin is no longer bound by any agreement with regard to this subject. Do you know that to be a fact? > > > That is very different from what has happened here. Here Erwin has been given > negative proprietary information about the product - the M7 - and told by > Leica NOT TO MENTION IT AT ALL. Certainly another leap. I suppose you have documents supporting this allegation? Again I note that with respect to the subject that the M7 is most likely no different than the M6. > > > Does anything better demonstrate the closeness of his relationship with Leica > Camera and the Company's influence over him as well as the reason the > objectivity of his evaluations, his tests and his writing have been > questioned. > > Seth LaK 9 It really demonstrates a leap which you support with a shaky foundation. And your "point", not supported with any real facts about any agreements between Erwin and Leica Lest you think I am a huge Erwin fan, I have butted heads with him over rangefinder whiteout. I knew something was different between the M2 and M6 but not what. I also came to believe that Erwin didn't really know, at the time, what was different either. Dennis > > > n a message dated 3/11/02 1:16:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, > jbcollier@powersurfr.com writes: > > > Can you point out to me exactly where he spilled the beans? And what kind of > > beans he spilt? Perhaps on his newsletter? Certainly I have seen no > messages > > here. > > > > John Collier > > > > > From: "Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.m.korhonen@uusikaupunki.fi> > > > > > > Thatīs what the quote says. And heīs spilling the beans now. > > > All the best! > -- - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html