Swiss parts supply

User avatar
deerworrier
Posts: 2319
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 pm

Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:08 am

Hammers wrote:Love your work
:D well, what a bunch of pompous idiots! basically their statment reads as "nobody is buying these, so we are going to put the price up and then you will all be sorry!" yea, devastated mate. how many suppliers in their right minds up the price of non-selling items? perhaps they think they wil do the same as they did with their watches, make them more expensive as more expense=more desire, except that 99% of the buyers dont give a crap about the movement inside and are buying the percieved name value and kudos. personally i hope they sink into a 70s style pit of recession and inaction.

little test of SWATCH theory: my Fortis didnt sell at $725 so if you dont buy it now im going to put the price up next week then you will have to pay $900. now i should just sit back and await the flood of PMs wanting it at the lower price!
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people and more useful in general.”


Despite having the numbers, there is always a crazy man in the mountains that none of the tribes will go near!
Always aim to be that man.
User avatar
Brucy
Posts: 650
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:05 pm

Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:27 pm

Lol
User avatar
EisenFaust
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 6:57 pm

Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:28 pm

PM sent ;-)
User avatar
harlansmart
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: Arrears, praying for time...
Contact:

Fri Nov 04, 2016 12:16 pm

Whats the latest on this please, oooh might comment on 3 points too:

1. A boycott, would work, would work perfectly... there are 2 x shops on Queen Street that if all customers ceased accessing, along with all other such shops, the ordinary (i.e. little) people (which is us) would very very soon win. Problem is, we’re not that smart as people, so a boycott… could be tricky. We have no Team Spirit or sense of right/wrong as a peoples.
Some very angry people over this and the Americans are now taking it up with their Federal Trade Commissioner. What we probably need is for the watch buying public to start boycotting their products, that'll make them take notice.


2. This would be fine, if they were double to four times as fast, or double to for times better, sadly, the facts generally show quite the opposite.
It's just absurd; there is absolutely no way the so called service centres can take up this work, well unless they just totally overprice their repairs. Maybe that's the point? They're already double to four times what a lot of us independents would charge.



3. The ‘watch dealer here in NZ' lied to you.

Problem is this, I know of a very fine gents 18K AP recently spotted on a local Auction Site & subsequently acquired for NZD7000 which was very fair, it didn’t run but a full service by a mate of mine (this is an extremely thin & very fine fully in-house 18K AP we are talking about) a full service by a mate of mine (Cost: NZD 550) had it running like a champ & looking the part.

Then he went swimming = rusted crown stem… a 2 piece part, can’t get it. Only way to get it is going through the Local AP Agent They sent the watch to get the part, naturally it also got serviced, again, the crown stem replaced. Cost Wholesale NZD6900

Repeat: Cost NZD6900 to get this one little part = Robbery imvho

Was talking to a watch dealer here in NZ and it seems like no one can service an Audemars Piguet - I wonder if they put in specific screws / that can only be accessed with their tool. In case something is broken then send it to them for repair.
Harlan
Timekeeper Watch Club
Auckland, New Zealand, Pacific Ocean, Earth
jupiter6
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 6:01 pm

Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:24 am

I don't think a boycott would do anything at all.



I daresay the majority of buyers in these two Queen Street establishments are cashed up tourists who couldn't give two figs what movement the watch has, if it's in house or whether it was worn on the moon once over 50 years ago.



They know the brand name, and that's all.


They are also on the ship leaving tomorrow morning, never to return.


Let's be honest, people with an active interest in watches aren't the market these guys are trying to capture.
User avatar
harlansmart
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: Arrears, praying for time...
Contact:

Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:36 pm

Agreed, so a simple answer would be to 'Make Gang Planks Illegal' to own, use, operate, carry, sell, swap, trade, service etc in New Zealand, upon New Zealand Water and/or in New Zealand Air Space.

Then simply have ordinary people boycott the stores, there you go.

Zero Sales

Sorted.
Harlan
Timekeeper Watch Club
Auckland, New Zealand, Pacific Ocean, Earth
chemistman
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:21 am

Sat Nov 26, 2016 8:20 am

Isn't the Swiss luxury watch industry on the decline now ? Last time I checked Panerais second hand market has dropped by miles , a few other brands followed .

As far as I can see the queen street stores are mainly selling to the Chinese tourists , go in and have a look at their staff and it's not hard to miss. I don't see how locals can boycott them . I think most already have lol , these days it's far easier and chesper to buy these watches from overseas.
Kiwidave
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:42 pm
Location: Kerikeri, Bay of Islands

Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:09 am

Latest update in the ongoing Swatch versus Cousins case re refusal to supply parts to the legitimate repair trade.

News Update: 4.1.17 - Despite Swatch objections, Swiss Judge agrees Cousins request to limit the case

I am once again pleased to give you another positive update on the action brought against Cousins by Swatch in the Bern Court.

When our Swiss lawyers studied the claim Swatch made, they formed an opinion that Swiss law does not allow such a case to be dragged to Switzerland, and that the real reasons Swatch had made the claim were to try and intimidate us, to drain our resources, and to delay things for as long as possible. We are optimistic that the Bern Court will take a very dim view of such legal tactics.

In our response to the Court, we detailed all the arguments that support this opinion, and requested a ruling from the Judge that he suspend hearing the full case until he had decided whether or not the case was admissible at all. Logic dictates that it makes no sense to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal fees, and days of court time arguing about EU Competition Law, only to find out afterwards that the whole case was not admissible.

On receipt of our request, the Judge forwarded our arguments to Swatch and asked for their response. Unsurprisingly, Swatch did not agree with our challenge, dismissed it out of hand, and requested that the Judge give us very limited time to present our response to the entire case.

However it seems that our arguments about the legitimacy of Swatch’s actions are well enough founded and need to be considered, because the Judge has now issued an order in line with our request, and against Swatch’s preferred procedure. This order greatly simplifies and speeds up matters. In my opinion, this decision clearly shows that the Bern Court does not hesitate when it comes to ensuring that the rules are followed fairly, and to further ensure that the minnows have a genuine opportunity to defend themselves when attacked by the whales. I am grateful to the Judge for his actions in this regard.

The practical upshot of all this is that we will get a much quicker decision from the Swiss court on where the full case will be held. If our points of procedural law win the day, then ultimately the case will return to the English courts where it will be considerably easier to argue a matter of English and EU law. If the Swiss Court does not agree with our arguments, then we will have the more difficult option of arguing the matter in a foreign language some 600 miles away from home.

What Swatch should by now have learned from all this, is that whatever legal tactics they employ, Cousins resolve remains as strong as ever when it comes to obtaining a ruling that their parts embargo breaches English and EU competition law. We continue to do everything we can to support our trade customers in their efforts to provide the end consumer with quality services at a fair price.

Kind regards

Anthony Cousins

WatchPro Report: http://www.watchpro.com/cousins-claims- ... tch-group/
User avatar
harlansmart
Posts: 1987
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: Arrears, praying for time...
Contact:

Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:15 pm

The next decision from he Swiss Court, what sort of time frame is it supposed to be coming in :?:
Harlan
Timekeeper Watch Club
Auckland, New Zealand, Pacific Ocean, Earth
Kiwidave
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:42 pm
Location: Kerikeri, Bay of Islands

Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:48 pm

Sorry Harlan, I missed seeing your question. The Swiss court have rejected the swatch argument, copy from June below and more to follow:
News Update: 28.6.17 - Swiss Court Rules against Swatch and in favour of Cousins

Late yesterday afternoon, our lawyers in Zurich received the ruling we have been waiting for from the Court in Bern. I am pleased to advise you that the Judge has declared the claim that Swatch brought against us to be inadmissible under Swiss Law, and has dismissed the case.

Cousins had originally given Swatch three weeks to resupply spares, or face legal action to be brought by us in the High Court in London. Their response was to bring a pre-emptive Negative Declaratory Action against us in the Berne Court. What Swatch were asking for, was that a Swiss judge should rule that they had done nothing wrong under British and European law, and that they were not obliged to resupply us.

Clearly, the best place to determine what British law requires is in a British court, so it was immediately apparent to us that the Swatch claim in Bern was a blatant attempt to waste time, and avoid facing the consequences of their unlawful parts embargo on the independent repair trade. As we have explained in previous news releases, it is a requirement of Swiss law that anyone bringing a Negative Declaratory Action must firstly show that there was little prospect of their opponent bringing the matter before the courts in their own right. As the action that triggered Swatch to make this claim was Cousins letter declaring its intention to bring an action in the High Court, this requirement was not met, and it is for this reason that Swatch’s case has been thrown out by the Bern Court.

It is important to understand that the Bern Court has not given any opinion or ruling on whether or not Swatch are obliged to supply us with spares, only that this attempt by Swatch to drag the matter away from the High Court is not valid under Swiss Law.

We are very grateful to the Bern Court for the equitable manner in which they have dealt with this case. We now have to wait until the end of August whilst Swatch decide whether or not to appeal against this decision, and will then be able to explain further how this case will progress.

In the meantime, we urge all who work in the Independent Watch Repair sector to understand that it is possible to beat the industry giants, and to be assured that Cousins is staying in this fight until it is won.

Kind regards

Anthony Cousinsment
Kiwidave
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:42 pm
Location: Kerikeri, Bay of Islands

Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:50 pm

Further to the above, comment from Cousins late last month:
News Update: 25.7.17 - “When Corporatism leads to Corporate Governance Failure - The case of the Swiss watch industry”

Newly listed for sale or free to down load on the Cousins web site is a book titled “When Corporatism leads to Corporate Governance Failure”. Not a phrase you would expect to see amongst the watch parts, tools and consumables, but the story behind the stocking of this book shows what happens when watch repairers learn a bit more about Business Law, and the value of persisting in trying to get that knowledge out to everyone.

Part of my role in the fight for open parts supply, is to make sense of the legal process and describe it in plain English for a non legal audience. Another part is to communicate that information to the trade, and as such I spend quite a bit of time on various on-line forums passing on what we have learned and responding to the inevitable questions. To be honest, sometimes this work is utterly soul destroying. I can spend ages explaining what is going on in a Court case that will ultimately save thousands of jobs and businesses worldwide, and by way of response get hostile abuse because someone’s purchase from Cousins allegedly wasn’t handled properly. But it pays to stick with the communication plan for the nuggets of good stuff that appear, and so it was with this book.

A fellow contributor to one of these forums is someone calling themselves “topcat666”. In the middle of long and detailed debate explaining Competition Law, topcat666 slipped in a two line post that included a link to a web site and Chapter 7 of a book. The title of that chapter is “Market and political power of the Swatch Group”, and it quickly got my attention. A bit more digging and research revealed a book published in 2016 by Dr. Isabelle Schluep Campo and Dr. Philipp Aerni, two senior figures from the Centre for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability at the University of Zurich. A bit more digging revealed the full publication and contact information for the authors, and I soon found myself in conversation with Dr. Schluep Campo. It seems that there are eminent people in Switzerland who are as unimpressed with Swatch’s behaviour as we are.

There is a small section in the book about the parts supply issue, and it quickly became apparent that the authors were not aware of the full history of this issue, or the current legal activity. The book is a rather damning inditement on how Swiss rules and regulations were effectively ignored in the formation of the Swatch Group, and how the current management have adopted a similar approach. The parts issue seems to be yet another example of this culture.

The point of the book is to demonstrate the importance of large corporations being made to follow the rules, and what happens when those rules are not properly enforced. If you are stll wondering why Cousins is stocking a book on corporate governance, it becomes obvious when you learn that the subtitle is “The case of the Swiss watch industry”. I strongly recommend that everyone in the Watch Repair business should read this book, and if anyone wants to learn more about how Competition Law helps in our efforts to restart supply of spares, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Steven Domb, Consultant to Cousins UK.
Kiwidave
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:42 pm
Location: Kerikeri, Bay of Islands

Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:01 pm

For those interested the book discussed is available for £9.00 or free download via the Cousins website.
Here's a taste:

“One must acknowledge the ability of Nicolas Hayek to mobilize his business network and personal resources in a way that maximize financial returns not just for himself but also his partners. Ultimately these skills made him a billionaire.”

“Pretending to be Robin Hood while representing the establishment”

“the reliance on the “Swissness” premium also led to complacency”

“Hayek must of known that ASUAG was not in dire state but actually a goldmine”

“a state monopoly essentially fell into private hands and the consequences for the industry as a whole are felt to date”

“both Hayek and Jobs (Steve) were strongly focused on ruthlessly taking advantage of their market power and were known to be arrogant and vain”

“Nicolas Hayek merely inherited a former state monopoly that he later converted into a private monopoly”

“Nicolas Hayek was brought into the watch business by the establishment”

“It was not Nicolas Hayek who revolutionized the watch business with the development and successful commercialization of the Swatch, but Ernst Thomke and his team.”

“The Swatch Group continues to rely on extracting monopoly rents”

“The Hayek family does not seem to worry because its members have reason to believe that Swiss corporatism will protect their business, allegedly in the “public interest”

Cheers,
David.
cato88
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:27 pm
Location: Invercargill

Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:38 pm

Interesting read. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

Post Reply