Essilor now involved in contact lenses, soon all contact lens companies..

Luxotica now has interest in JnJ's contact lens division. I believe the number one selling brand of contact lens world-wide-- Oasys, with the launch of Oasys with Transitions. They seem to have applied the strategy of strong proprietary branding and technology to give them an unfair advantage in the market again.

Though, with vertical integration and direct to consumer capability, their involvement with JnJ is probably not a long term goal. They are likely already involved with other contact lens companies or will be, as this technology becomes licensed to other members of the CLMA, but competitors are litigated. If we observe the optical lens market and its licensing of transitions to each optical lens manufacturer, we can see they will have control in every channel.

If they are allowed to continue to operate online, without licensing, and without professionals being allowed a viable alternative channel, Luxotica will also control eye care professionals, and: the standard of care; quality of fit/service; variety of price, and options, our patients receive, by gradually decreasing competition in this market too.

In my opinion, we, we can't stop internet dispensing, but we must be held to the same standards. The longer this drags on, the weaker, independents become.....

Ps. Shout out to Chris Ryser, sir, I would buy you a beer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clearly_a_monopoly

Luxotica now has interest in JnJ's contact lens division. I believe the number one selling brand of contact lens world-wide-- Oasys, with the launch of Oasys with Transitions. They seem to have applied the strategy of strong proprietary branding and technology to give them an unfair advantage in the market again.

Though, with vertical integration and direct to consumer capability, their involvement with JnJ is probably not a long term goal. They are likely already involved with other contact lens companies or will be, as this technology becomes licensed to other members of the CLMA, but competitors are litigated. If we observe the optical lens market and its licensing of transitions to each optical lens manufacturer, we can see they will have control in every channel.

If they are allowed to continue to operate online, without licensing, and without professionals being allowed a viable alternative channel, Luxotica will also control eye care professionals, and: the standard of care; quality of fit/service; variety of price, and options, our patients receive, by gradually decreasing competition in this market too.

In my opinion, we, we can't stop internet dispensing, but we must be held to the same standards. The longer this drags on, the weaker, independents become.....

Ps. Shout out to Chris Ryser, sir, I would buy you a beer.

---

Welcome to 2020 where business goals and initiatives are done differently. Don't blame the companies, blame your regulatory Colleges.

Businesses are meant to carve new paths of opportunity, achieve growth and broaden market share. They did exactly that.

You paid your annual fees to both your Colleges and Associations, voted members in to protect you and have your best interests at hand. But did that really happen? You and I both know the answer to that.

And when it was too late, your Colleges (which used to despise each other) decided to join forces and file a law suit and not surprisingly lost. You know why they lost? Because they entered the game about 10 years too late.

Alternatively, you could scrape up the immense capital required, vertically integrate all aspects of your own new company, and go toe to toe yourself?

It's the courts, which are at fault.. Who see this monopoly, who seeks world domination as introducing competition... The beauty of this equation, is professionals hold equal power to that beast... They only need to choose other brands. Quite right however, with technology and the web, we can go toe to toe... We can all race to the bottom of the profit margin online and order the cheapest products with the highest margins. I agree with you. The regulatory colleges need to take the gloves off.

The courts are at fault ? Did you learn nothing from the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair ? Did you learn nothing from the Clearly Contacts court rulings in BC, did you even read the transcripts of the original case and the appeals ? Did you look at the SEC filings ?

How does the Jody Wilson Raybould affair relate, please do us all that favour... SEC filings? Why are they relevant to a corporation trumping health regulations? If I have deep enough pockets to operate illegally and challenge the court rulings relentlessly, cooerse suppliers to get in line, hire a former health minister to my board of directors to facilitate a change in provincial regulations, I can probably buy anyone or anything... The legal process only seems like a minor obstacle in doing business. That doesn't make it ethical or fair. It certainly doesn't make me want to do business with such an entity, especially since it's also selling against me on multiple levels. That's just common sense.

It seems like a walk in the park, since most ecps get in line for crumbs , and only essilor henchmen seem interested in responding to my statement as a means of damage control?

Transparent may have been a better name than clearly.

The courts were not at fault. Just like Jody wasn’t at fault as Attorney General. It’s whats behind them that matters. If you read the transcripts you would know the courts did their job correctly and ruled against Clearly then kindly pointed out what the regulatory bodies needed to do to protect the public and prevent online sales. If you had read the Sec filings you would see the rest of the story, by researching those names.

I believe they were at fault, calling on the competition bureau was not relevant, that body of government has been absolutely useless for fifty years or longer, , and in error in this case as always. To accept that testimony as having merit is ludicrous, and why the Court is at fault.... I suppose essilor could drop the price of rx glasses
to fifty cents, and guess prescriptions, pd's, seg hts fits, and adjustments, base curves etc and that would be deemed more competitive by the board.. After all ecps go bankrupt they could drop ship from France... And raise prices again.. That's competition.

Is that where we are going?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clearly_a_monopoly

It's the courts, which are at fault.. Who see this monopoly, who seeks world domination as introducing competition... The beauty of this equation, is professionals hold equal power to that beast... They only need to choose other brands. Quite right however, with technology and the web, we can go toe to toe... We can all race to the bottom of the profit margin online and order the cheapest products with the highest margins. I agree with you. The regulatory colleges need to take the gloves off.

---

The courts aren't at fault. They are only the ones that decide either party's fate when a mutual agreement or settlement cannot be reached. Legislation cases are never a slam dunk either.

Had the Colleges been proactive and on their game 10 years earlier, perhaps this would have never evolved at all?

And it's not a monopoly - not even close. It's more of a oligopoly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by idispense

The courts were not at fault. Just like Jody wasn’t at fault as Attorney General. It’s whats behind them that matters. If you read the transcripts you would know the courts did their job correctly and ruled against Clearly then kindly pointed out what the regulatory bodies needed to do to protect the public and prevent online sales. If you had read the Sec filings you would see the rest of the story, by researching those names.

---

Exactly +1.

Again... Someone speaking like this case is a foregone conclusion conclusion. Allow me to remind you both that the colleges were successful in getting an injunction against clearly. It was only an appeal which sited the competition bureaus finding that glasses were up to thirty percent cheaper online. Duh. Easy to do if I am the one breaking the law who also manufacturers the bulk of product globally. Blaming the colleges, pointing out their objectives are not 100% aligned is not useful. Playing the blame game - - yes it took them a long time to organize; it is an unusual situation. In fact they won. They lost the appeal.

Quite right, an olygopily with one firm equal in weight to like every other company combined, from all sectors. How about potential monopoly... It's just semantics at this point - - the objective is clear, and there is no obvious competitor.

-2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clearly_a_monopoly

Again... Someone speaking like this case is a foregone conclusion conclusion. Allow me to remind you both that the colleges were successful in getting an injunction against clearly. It was only an appeal which sited the competition bureaus finding that glasses were up to thirty percent cheaper online. Duh. Easy to do if I am the one breaking the law who also manufacturers the bulk of product globally. Blaming the colleges, pointing out their objectives are not 100% aligned is not useful. Playing the blame game - - yes it took them a long time to organize; it is an unusual situation. In fact they won. They lost the appeal.

Quite right, an olygopily with one firm equal in weight to like every other company combined, from all sectors. How about potential monopoly... It's just semantics at this point - - the objective is clear, and there is no obvious competitor.

-2

---

Duh, it is the Colleges fault. Too little too late. The only reason an injunction was filed was to buy time and do the proper analysis so the right decision would be made in the end.

I'm now semi retired, a neutral party and have zero interest in any of this. We can debate this all day long but clearly you have an axe to grind, so I shall take the high road and enjoy my day. Cheerio.

You're not neutral if you are siding with clearly. Your work status has no bearing. I do have an axe to grind. This needs to go to trial again. No doubt the court will side with the public interest, and the decision Wil be overturned if the right approach is utilized, and there is concensus among members to go after illegal dispensers.

On the other hand if its people who have no interest in the industry, siding with the demise of the industry, axe no axe. Keep your comments to yourself.

That's the high road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clearly_a_monopoly

You're not neutral if you are siding with clearly. Your work status has no bearing. I do have an axe to grind. This needs to go to trial again. No doubt the court will side with the public interest, and the decision Wil be overturned if the right approach is utilized, and there is concensus among members to go after illegal dispensers.

On the other hand if its people who have no interest in the industry, siding with the demise of the industry, axe no axe. Keep your comments to yourself.

That's the high road.

---

You can assume all the non-factual innuendos you can dream up. Good luck with your battle. I shall not participate in a rhetoric debate that has quickly become delusional and obnoxious.

For the record, when the court makes the final decision, unless there is an appeal (which to date has not occurred), the parties and court all rest their case regardless if you don't agree with the outcome.

Clearly, perhaps you should focus your witch hunt on their lawyers then if you choose? They still got handsomely paid for their lacklustre efforts.

Isn't that funny, I find you to be a hypocrite, a coward and generally complacent. Though, quite willing to direct a debate and participants, you're not involved with. Good luck with the armchair warrior attitude, I hope it softens in retirement, and becomes more honest.


Delusional, obnoxious.. You know when you resort to ad hominem, you lose. Suggest you retire that approach when you're off on the high road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clearly_a_monopoly

Isn't that funny, I find you to be a hypocrite, a coward and generally complacent. Though, quite willing to direct a debate and participants, you're not involved with. Good luck with the armchair warrior attitude, I hope it softens in retirement, and becomes more honest.


Delusional, obnoxious.. You know when you resort to ad hominem, you lose. Suggest you retire that approach when you're off on the high road.

---

Thank you for the kind words!

"and guess prescriptions, pd's, seg hts fits, and adjustments, base curves etc "

lol ok like the majority of ECP's are doing this correctly right now? The blame is on us for not doing anything about it before and now not doing anything about it to keep up with the changes and competition. You're the one that's delusional and obnoxious and a coward. You're hiding behind an account name specifically made to troll against this topic. People are providing you valid rebutals to your claims and you're just resorting to playground tactics of na-na-boo-boo i'm not listening.