Hacker News Reader

Comment by bongodongobob | Hacker News Reader

I think the catch is it's not Rolex that isn't selling the watches online, it's preventing affiliated dealers from doing it. They are controlling other people's business interests. I can see both sides on this one. Rolex feels like it could devalue the brand exclusivity and the dealers feel that it impedes them from doing legal business.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one.

View on HN

Here’s how to feel about it: MYOB.

If the dealers don’t like the terms, they can sell other brands and need to stop tattling to Maman.

Of all the problems, busybodies decided this was the important one to make a stand on. Fixing potholes in the roads would be more worthwhile. Kids are sleeping cold and hungry in the streets, but sacré bleu at not being able to point-and-drool for a fancy watch.

So-called Competition “Authorities” everywhere can go pound sand.

Yeah that's where I lean. I don't think these dealers have a "right" to sell Rolex's. If they don't like the terms set forth by Rolex, don't sell them.

Unless there’s some evidence that the legal system (which isn’t responsible for homelessness) is enforcing business rules instead of helping starving, cold children… then that’s a false dichotomy.

And that's what we did. I was working for a Rolex AD for about 10 years, and they were an AD for decades. One day they got fed up with the 'rules' and dropped their AD status and started selling Rolex on the "secondary" market. These were never worn watches in original boxes and papers and in no way different than the watch we sold as an AD. Just second-hand. We suddenly had access to the inventory that our customers wanted when they wanted it, and told Rolex to get stuffed.

And yes, watching objectively well off people argue about luxury items as if it's important is always entertaining to me.

Where did the sudden increase in inventory come from once they dropped their agreement with Rolex?

Nike and other brands have deals with many third party retailers that prevent those retailers from offering discounts on their items. How is this different than that?

As the article mentions, the court did allow that practice:

"The watchmaker successfully defended its practice of enforcing recommended retail prices for its retailers, with the authority accepting that preventing the sale of fake Rolex watches and grey market trading are legitimate commercial aims."

but for the online-selling bit:

"The French authority rejected a defence from Rolex’s lawyers that restrictions are needed to prevent counterfeiting and parallel trade in its watches."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com