View single post by watchtecman
 Posted: Sun Apr 10th, 2011 09:56 pm
Full Topic
watchtecman

 

Joined: Sat May 22nd, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 35
Status: 
Offline
hey guys,
              a brief post from me regarding the matter. Till now we have been quiet on the public domain. As some will know, we r practically new on the scene and totally clueless on whole social/online networking and PR antics. But it appears that everytime such a 'rogue' post arrears, we get a flood of email spams to our company's email, this is a hindrance to fluidity of business at the company and i thought i should say a bit of something on behalf of crux.

point form be much easier

-  company is 100% financed by a good mate of mine, a generous offer as a platform to help me turn my hobby watchmaking habit more serious. Intention was never to make fast quick bucks, but to generate revenue just so we have the opportunity to buy better/rare movements, precious metal cases, hand bands. something i love more than building watches is building as many different variety of watches as i can.

-  i do not deny the fact that Crux n SAS are using the same case. However i only knew of the similarities after i saw the SAS clock/java applet on another forum. by then ive already paid my monies for the contract to have the cases built. So i contacted the case factory and asked them if it was ok, as i then believe SAS and Crux are prob going to sell our watches around the same places. Factory said ok, no worries, so i left it as it

-  We initially released our the 1st Crux watch on another forum.  It is only after ive showed our watch to the public that SAS started to complained about the 'faulty cases'. Everything up to that date was only complimentary comments on how terrific the quality of the SAS/CRUX cases.

- SAS contaced us fuming that we should take all our watches down as it is designed by them. after a few exchanges of emails,. i told SAS that we r ready to take our watches down, if SAS went back to talk to the facotry and sort it out. If the factory agrees to buy back the cases they sold to us, we r ready to forgo the time n monies spents on the dials, dials movements and do a different watch. SAS did no comply, so we thought that was that.

- as a small startup, we do not have the funds to buy cases, movement of dials in 100s of quanity. We approached a few case dealers and was offered a few cases. SO we picked this one in paritcular, as it was a little different from the other square ( longio ), DSSD ( fullswing) cases on offer.

- not trying to defend our self here, but how is anyone able to establish the legal rights of every single piece of watch part on the global market today.  there r thousands of diff cases n parts to be configured into millions of diff watches.  I f we didnt pick this particular case and went with another, who is to say an individual wont  show himself again as the designer of the case?

- the factory owner told us that the case was designed by their in house designers with specific changes made for diff customers.

-  I do not know the intricates of happenings behind closed doors with the case factory and their clients. But if SAS is really the designer ( original ). what incentive does the case factory have to gain by doing this and ending their relationship? remember this is a new cases without proven sucess. as a business would't a company stay with the original client n mantain a healhty working r's so to sell more models together?


anyways, thats something to think about.

cheers
kenneth
crux