Bain Capital? I can think of a whole bunch of jokes about that possibility. Might not be funny though.

Just a guess, but I'd have a hard time believing it was D&M, only because I'd be surprised if Outlaw would still offer Marantz products if that were the case. Maybe I'm wrong.

Technically D&M Holdings no longer exists. It is now D+M Group and they are headquartered in New Jersey not Japan.

I also don't see this being something that D+M Group would do. Aside from the partnership they've had with Outlaw that allows Outlaw to sell some Marantz gear, it just doesn't seem to fit.

Yep after reading some of M Codes postings over at AVS I agree gonk.

Long time lurker, seldom poster here...

I disagree. This will become public information, and sooner rather than later, what with the internetz and all. The PR shitstorm that follows will be exactly the kind of "free market solution" that results from cutting a "competitor" off at the knees.

I'm also in the camp that thinks the 978 platform surfaces in the domestic Chinese market inside 6 months. This is not a knee-jerk xenophobic reaction, but simply a reading of the complete disregard they have for IP rights. How the eff does Outlaw get shutout without so much as design rights?

Informing customers why a long-awaited product has been killed was something that Outlaw really had to do, but outright including the names of all the other players could interfere with future business for Outlaw. Sure, the announcement from Outlaw may trigger a series of events that identifies all those other players, but that is part of the "free market solution" (to borrow the term) that Outlaw can quite reasonably say isn't due to their actions. By refusing to offer the names, Outlaw takes the high road, in a manner of speaking. That can benefit them in other business negotiations.


You may well be right. In fact, you probably are. It is likely that the factory would choose not to use the platform (or at least any obviously recognizable parts of it) for North American or European products, but it is very possible for something sold domestically in Asia to be derived from this design. As for the last question, I think you've already answered your own question. They might have grounds to call in the legal counsel and file a lawsuit in Chinese courts, but no realistic hope of getting any meaningful concessions from the effort. Writing it off as a painful lesson and walking away may be the most fiscally responsible course of action.

From a purely generic contract law / intellectual property rights stand point the circumstances could have gone down the same way with US based contract manufacturing partners. Of course the details of if / how / where the "still borne" product could see the light of day for a US firm are a whole lot different due to , among other things, the long history of these sorts of cases being litigated . I seem to recall that men back to Eli Whitney and Alexandar Graham Bell were involved in these kinds of controversies... China is eons behind in that regard, and may have reason why they never really want to "catch up" to courts in the West. Frankly even firms like Siemens, Nokia, Alcatel and other Euro-Zone firms have legal separations for their US divisions for largely political reason back home.

The thought occurs to me that with the current unemployment situation, the wind down of activities related to high tech military electronics that were rushed into production to support Iraq and Afgahanistan which should free up skilled electronics assemblers in California , as well as the favorable rates for business investment that there should be more opportunies to "on shore" certain consumer electronics activities. It would great if Outlaw could work the "proud to be made in the USA" angle into a viable future offering....

And yet the dollar is stronger now than it's been in awhile, so while that's a pleasant thought, it will remain a pipe dream for all but the most boutique, cost-no-object brands.

First, when we are told: "This topic has been moved." we
should be told to where is has been moved.

Second, and more important, in light of the recent shocking
announcement about the model 978, we should be told what North
American company put the pressure on the Chinese OEM and what
is the name of that Chinese OEM who broke their contract with
Outlaw.

The fact that neither was named makes me very suspicious.
What? The names have been withheld to protect the guilty.
Please don't tell me that legal issues prevent the disclosure
of any names. I'm not going to believe you.

I am so very close to losing any sense of credibility with Outlaw ...

Paul