[squeegee]

Someone suggested bringing a topic over here I think to have a non-censored discussion/debate on autos and a bit of controversy.

The players:

OP (original poster) at TSB asking questions about new auto possibilities. Basic forum question that often morphs into drama.

Printficient aka Sonny chimes in that OP should have a look at Marcodie, Austrian brand apparently failed but now operating in some fashion out of Texas.

M&R aka Rich Hoffman chimes in that Marcodie has a 1 million dollar judgement against them from M&R, but does not state for what or why. Also claims Marcodie owes others big time.

Marcodie USA aka AJ Halford chimes in that he has no knowledge of mentioned judgement. Also states "I simply felt I had to defend myself against baseless and flat out falsehoods about my company"

Then there is confusion about Austrian Marcodie vs Marcodie USA and if said company and logo are one and the same or not.

Comment by californiadreamin aka Winston Strickland (long time industry vet)
"Who Is The Common Denominator? Any One Who Is Perceived As A Competitive Threat?
I Have Heard This Same Song, Many Times Before. Sad"

Thread is then essentially shut down by Mods, Frog and Dottonedan, Dan who is apparently employed by M&R but part owner of TSB?

So I think what inquiring minds want to know is why this little thread evoked so much backlash? What's really going on? Was there truly a plot to destroy M&R hard drives? Whose fingerprints where on the disc? Lawsuits in Europe? Over what? Does this really have anything to do with Marcodie USA or is this just an attempt to smear a little mud on a competitor?

Original thread on the other forum: http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.p...c,15328.0.html

So anyway, in conclusion there seems to be a lack of explanation here and since the other forum seems to want no part of it, there are some that might want to hear the real story.

[musterdbom]

Didn't M&R make Marcodie take down their tradeshow display that showed and oval press on it at an international show? I remember pics of that here a few years ago.

[srimonogramming]

I don't know that I know any more about this than most of you, I have communicated with people on both sides and I'll try to break it down how I see it. I had a lot written down here but I want to get more info before I put something down here I can't take back. I'm waiting to here back from a guy I trust a lot with matters such as this.

[srimonogramming]

Does anyone have thoughts about a press manufacturer that is essentially out of business, that has lost a judgement and owes another manufacturer money, then having their assets bought by someone in another country, and the new ownership would then assume the judgement as well as the assets? Or would you think that old ownership would still assume the responsibility of what they had done to the manufacturer that sued them? I don't know how law works in these matters, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts on it.

Let me preface this by saying the following scenario isn't exactly what has happened with the 2 companies we're talking about, but this pretend scenario is all the info I know (and may not be close to correct) and is the only thing I can use to put the issue on paper to discuss. Here it is to the best of my knowledge, which is still pure speculation but we can at least discuss it.

Company A, a screen printing press manufacturer located in Europe, is going out of business. They also lost a judgement recently to another press manufacturer for $800K due to shady business practices, essentially theft of intellectual property as far as we can tell, done so by an individual/s while employed by Company A. Another Company, we'll call them Company B comes along and likes the presses and thinks they can manufacturer the machines in the US and make a go of it as a press manufacturer. Then Company B buys the assets of A, moves it all to the US, along with some essential employees (not sure about that but it's likely that happened) and begins the life of a textile press manufacturer. Is it possible that Company B is also passed along the settlement/judgement responsibility? Or when a company buys another one that is defunct and was found guilty of nefarious activity, are they clear of the negative activities the previous company was guilty of? Is there something going on besides what is on the surface of this I'm wondering?

But you see, I'm not a lawyer, and I look at these things like a simpleton and quite frankly naively so there may be precedence set that Company B that buys Company A, gets literally everything that Company A has, good or bad, reputation, debts, profits, with no ability to just buy the things Company B wanted from A. What is everyone's thoughts on this scenario or one that they think portrays what we're seeing here?

[crazy mike]

This is the one where the lawyers get all the money.

[squeegee]

So you'd think if you sued for $800k and won the judgement that it would be sufficient compensation. I mean if that's even accurate. New owners of company B yes inherit rep and problems and whatever was agreed upon, but the new ownership doesn't deserve to be bad mouthed if they didn't commit the original sin, right? All legal stuff aside, is it really ethical to speculate their demise or downplay them because of something they most likely weren't a part of?

Still wondering what the real story is...

[tonypep]

Can't see why this is of importance to anyone except the involved parties.

[srimonogramming]

Originally Posted by tonypep

Can't see why this is of importance to anyone except the involved parties.

It would seem that only a few of us disagree, hence the limited discussion of it here, but it did get a little more response on the other forum.

[srimonogramming]

Oh, and I'm sure you've known about it for a while as have many others, but it wasn't discussed publicly until one of the parties involved made it public...just to clarify why it's even being talked about.

[musterdbom]

Originally Posted by tonypep

Can't see why this is of importance to anyone except the involved parties.

I'd argue it's of great importance if someone were in the market for a new press and considering Marcodie. If Rich is planning a witch hunt on Marcodie USA then chances are they'll be squashed like bugs.

I'd like to hear what Marcodie of Austria did that was so bad to have the hounds released on them? Patents? Stolen ideas/designs? Intellectual property? Ex M&R employee non-compete contract breach? What's the real deal?

Maybe Marcodie-USA can fill us in without getting in trouble?