Well,

If I were a lawyer filing a lawsuit or expecting any "fixes" to come
from Meade, I certainly would be concerned. Will Meade remain? From
their 10-Q released on Thursday-

"On October 11, 2007, we announced a restructuring plan that would
significantly reduce our cost structure by moving our California-
based manufacturing operations to a lower-cost location. In addition,
we announced that the Board of Director's has formed a special
committee and will engage an investment bank to assist the Company in
exploring strategic alternatives. Such alternatives may involve a
financial restructuring of the Company's capital structure or
potentially the sale of all or a portion of the Company. At this time
there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to execute on
any strategic alternatives"

--- In RCX400@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Carlisle" <jim@...> wrote:
>
> How about talking to Meade about your grievances before threatening
a
> lawsuit. There are a list of things I have accumulated that I
intend
> to have Meade fix before my warranty runs out. Meanwhile, I am
> enjoying using the scope and getting fine results.
>
> Jim
>
> --- In RCX400@yahoogroups.com, "George N. Huftalen, Jr."
> <gnhuftalen@> wrote:
> >
> > Thad,
> >
> >
> >
> > While I agree that a Class Action Lawsuit is not yet wise, let
alone
> > warranted, your definitions may not hold up. I am not an attorney
> either,
> > but I work for one and draft these suits daily.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. In order to have the elements of a suit, the complainant
> must show
> > a foreseeable error or flaw and that this error or flaw caused the
> > complainant damage.
> >
> > 2. The error or flaws in engineering were, or should have
been,
> > foreseeable. (BTW, "engineering errors" fall under the term
> "Workmanship,"
> > it may not only apply to "manufacture," so a warranty issue can be
> argued)
> >
> > 3. Fraud can be alleged regarding engineering changes,
allowing
> > discovery of the development of the product. The case law to which
> you refer
> > will not stand up to this element if the argument can be made.
This
> element
> > of fraud may be supported merely by the way Meade advertised the
> product as
> > "ARC" telescopes which were elements of previously settled suit.
The
> > Plaintiffs may prevail on this issue , which is why a RICO suit
was
> made in
> > the past.
> >
> > 4. But the sticking point to me, is that other than cost of
the
> > telescope and some frustration, is that damages sufficient for
most
> > jurisdictions to allow a lawsuit of any kind may be difficult to
prove
> > unless we are talking about the Max Mount and 16 and 20 inch
telescopes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Finally, the only people who make money on Class Action Lawsuits
are the
> > lawyers. It is a pyrrhic victory at best only used to make a
point.
> >
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > George N. Huftalen, Jr.
> > Meade 8 inch LX-90 UHTC Classic
> > "The telescope has come and I am charmed.
> > I don't see how on earth I ever farmed
> > A day without a tool so important." - Robert Frost
> >
> >
> >
> > From: RCX400@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RCX400@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of
> > Thad Floryan
> > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 1:51 AM
> > To: RCX400@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [RCX400] Re: Engineering fixes coming for RCX line
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In RCX400@yahoogroups.com <mailto:RCX400%
40yahoogroups.com> , "Brian
> > Schilt" <brianschilt@> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > I think a Class Action Lawsuit is in order.
> >
> > On what basis?
> >
> > I am not a lawyer, but a suit has to be based on something
actionable.
> >
> > I don't see any safety issues unless someone drops their RCX400
onto
> > their foot, and that would normally be contributory negligence on
> > the user's part.
> >
> > If you examine the warranty on the last page of the RCX400
manual, it
> > covers only "defects in materials and workmanship" which I
interpret
> > to mean, say, a bad casting of the rear cell or some other part.
> >
> > Additionally, (last line) "Meade reserves the right to change
product
> > specifications or to discontinue products without notice", so you
> > wouldn't have any recourse demanding any later engineering
changes.
> >
> > Nearly every product one can buy undergoes constant engineering
and/or
> > manufacturing changes/improvements, and case law clearly absolves
any
> > manufacturer from making such changes available to earlier
purchasers
> > unless it's a safety or life-threatening issue (which usually
requires
> > a product recall (e.g., Gravestone, er, Firestone tires, lead
paint in
> > children's toys, toxic chemicals in pet food, etc.)).
> >
> > It would be good PR for Meade to offer any evolutionary product
> > improvements/changes to earlier purchasers, but there's no legal
> > requirement to do so. I'm not even sure Meade offered replacement
> > tripods to the early adopters -- the original RCX400 tripods were
a
> > brain-damaged atrocity with outward-facing release levers that
would
> > snag clothing, cabling, etc. and collapse. You can see both tripod
> > variations here:
> >
> > <http://thadlabs.com/ASTRO/RCX400/#MASS>
> >
> > Click on each of the three thumbnails beneath the mass table.
Oddly,
> > the original brain-dead RCX400 tripod is still shown on Meade's
site:
> >
> > <http://meade.com/rcx400/> [scroll down about 2/5]
> >
> > At best, I could see Meade making any changes available for a
fee; I
> > doubt this could/would be covered by the Sky Assurance Policy.
> >
> > One item definitely needing improvement is the RA axis support as
has
> > been commented-upon here previously; it's both too short and too
> > flimsy for operation on a wedge as Doc G noted. The 14" LX200GPS
> > served as a prototype for the RCX400's base, forks and drive
system
> > and included a massive machined steel RA support block as you can
see
> > in this photo:
> >
> > <http://thadlabs.com/ASTRO/LX200GPS/14/LX200-
14_base_underside.jpg>
> >
> > yet look at what appears in the production 14" RCX400s:
> >
> > <http://thadlabs.com/ASTRO/PIX/RCX400_base_underside_14.jpg>
> >
> > Odd, since the RCX400 OTAs are considerably more massive than
their
> > same-sized LX200GPS/LX200R equivalents. Bean counter cost-cutting?
> >
>