john in cincy

On which points in particular don't you agree?

FixedWing

I do think punitive damages have their place.

I believe the car industry is a very competitive business and I don't think Audi can just lower their quality without it affecting sales and profits.

I believe that class actions can, at times, be very affective tools.

The very idea of a monopoly is that there is no free market. Ergo, the free market is not allowed to function.

The argument as to what constitutes the market is really a challenge to tying arrangements. I would agree with that argument if the arrangement had been disclosed.

So basically, I don't agree with any points. :-p

Stephen

Grapeking

for the replacement keys? They are for VW/Audi cars, right? So why should anyone else be entitled to carry keys for VW/Audi vehicles?

john in cincy

of class actions, so I will assume you agree with me that they create some inefficiencies that wouldn't otherwise exist.

As for the rest:

"I do think punitive damages have their place."

Possibly, but, as a believer in the free market, I think that corporations generally take all cost effective measures relating to quality, features, etc. By instituting punitive damages you are essentially forcing companies to take steps that would not otherwise be economically justified. Punitive damages, as such, work against the free market.

"I believe the car industry is a very competitive business and I don't think Audi can just lower their quality without it affecting sales and profits."

Once again, the free market should rule these decisions. By making Audi pay extra for its choice to make its keys extra expensive, you are essentially penalizing Audi for making a decision that the free market has already penalized them for.

More specifically, Audi presumably made a certain additional profit by using its key program, profit that they were able to work into providing better features to the car while still keeping the cost in-line with competitors. Now, those of us who had no problem with the key program have to pay extra for those of you who it bothered. Instead, I just would have preffered that those to whom it mattered would have purchased a different car.

"I believe that class actions can, at times, be very affective tools.'"

Effective tools for what? As I said, I agreed with you if you could remove the enormous transaction costs associated with such suits. Sadly, you can't and the bloated costs needed to pay the "legal machine" adds NOTHING to what I want, which is better cars.

"The very idea of a monopoly is that there is no free market. Ergo, the free market is not allowed to function."

Clearly, if someone establishes a monopoly AND uses monopoly power, that is antithetical to the operation of the free market and should be stopped.

"The argument as to what constitutes the market is really a challenge to tying arrangements. I would agree with that argument if the arrangement had been disclosed."

Unless Audi has a monopoly on automobiles in general (they don't), as a consumer, I have a choice of choosing another car for whatever reason (such as the fact that their replacement keys are cheaper). Conversely, I may CHOOSE an Audi because its replacement keys, while expensive, our much more difficult to illegally copy thus making my Audi much more difficult to steal.

The relevant market in this case, in my opinion, is CLEARLY, automobiles. No significant market share in the relevant market means no illegal monopoly per se.

Of course, if there were some evidence that Audi colluded with other automakers to say that EVERYONE would only provide replacement keys that cost $400, then that would be another story. Not the case we have here.

Finally, just to reiterate, we want companies to continually pursue monopolies (by creating better products and aggressively pricing their products), we just don't want them to actually achieve the desired monopoly and/or use monopoly power.

5speed6 v.2

Sweetened settlement, so basically a larger value useless coupon/voucher/rebate.

john in cincy

entitled to IP protection for, then yes, you would say that Audi should be able to sell the protected product for whatever price it chooses while not allowing anyone else to do so (for whatever time period that protection is awarded).

If you think the protection should be patent, you are looking at 20 years (for utility) or 14 years (for design). If you think the protection is copyright, you are looking at 95 years. If you think the protection is trademark and/or trade dress, the protection can be infinite.

I personally don't think the utilitarian design of a key, unless it incoporates some new, non-obvious technology, should be susceptible to patent protection.

But you certainly could disagree.

5speed6 v.2

throw it out.

Grapeking

how they wish to sell their products/services. Think of Coca Cola - there is no patent on the formula, yet Coke absolutely reserves the right to determine to whom they will sell, and at what price.

Same for Audi and their keys - they develped it (or had a supllier do so for them), it is a proprietary system, they should be able to require customers to purchase replacements from them.

Now, if someone came up with a reasonable facsimile of the product that worked properly and customers were happy with said product then Audi would have comeptition and prices would, in all likelihood, drop. If Audi tried to restrain competition then there would certainly be problems for them.

Until then, Audi would be free to sell the keys through their own (closed) system.

I'm not sure what the grounds are for the class action lawsuit.

S4_Cinci (I S'edTFA)

my situation. I generally hate someone taking as much as they can get just because they can and I figured that I was one more person forcing AoA to increase their cost of doing business, and therefore possibly increase the cost of their vehicles, parts and service.

But in the end, the threat of my lawsuit was the only thing that made them honor their warranty agreement and until they were faced with an actual court date, they merely thumbed their noses at me and figured I would simply tire of the BS and go away. Then they asked what it would take to make this go away - a clear strategy of ignoring certain problems because it was cheaper to screw the many and pay off the few that would fight it rather than do the right thing for everyone. I don't see the boys at AoA as altruistically as you seem to see them. In fact, it really pissed me off to sit across the table in an arbitration hearing and have them lie straight-faced just to avoid them having to honor their warranty contract with me.

Sometimes you have to use the stick instead of the carrot. I hate the fact that they colluded with Glasser and are using me (a member of the class with 2 vehicles) to lower their costs. Sometimes punishment is a deterrent to future "crimes".

FixedWing

<center><img src="http://www.bookofjoe.com/images/2223344_1.jpg"></center><p><ul><li><a href="http://www.s4-mtm.com/glasservsvoa.htm">Glasser vs. VWoA Smart Key Class Action</a></li></ul>