Closed RAW formats

[digitor]

An interesting comment (but one which wouldn't win many friends at the ACCC) from Canon, when asked to provide documentation of their file format to the OpenRAW project:

We certainly appreciate your business. However, our equipment and software is essentially offered on an "as is" basis, with no warranty as to its merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. If our equipment or software does not meet your needs, you are entirely welcome to seek other suppliers.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall Director/Media & Customer Relationship Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Perhaps he was having a bad day....

Cheers

[Hlop]

 AFAIK, Canon isn't providing such details to open projects. The very same problem was discussed a while ago at SANE project site (scanners software for Unix)

[kipper]

Perhaps these piranhas should be part of the companies advertising campaign when they promote products. I'm sure it'd attract lots of customers.

[bender]

link to open raw http://www.openraw.org/

[Wacky]

Gee, and I though it was only Nikon that were beign a bunch of tossers with the encrypted RAW data.

And I'd love for someone from Canon Aus to make such a bold, and dare I say it, illegal (well, I'm sure that is against trade practices at least in NSW) statement!

[sirhc55]

An interesting comment (but one which wouldn't win many friends at the ACCC) from Canon, when asked to provide documentation of their file format to the OpenRAW project:

We certainly appreciate your business. However, our equipment and software is essentially offered on an "as is" basis, with no warranty as to its merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. If our equipment or software does not meet your needs, you are entirely welcome to seek other suppliers.

Best Regards,

Chuck Westfall Director/Media & Customer Relationship Camera Marketing Group/Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Perhaps he was having a bad day....

Cheers

Actually, if you read this carefully he is actually stating the obvious - how can a company offer warranty on merchantability or fitness for a particular use. The key word is warranty.

Also, I do not see how the answer he gives relates to the OpenRAW situation especially when he states that he appreciates their business - what business?

[digitor]

As far as I know, goods offered for sale in most states of Australia must be of merchantable quality (i.e. fit for sale) and suitable for the purpose for which they were offered (i.e. with cameras, taking photographs).

I guess the business he refers to is the purchase of the camera in the first place, but I'm only guessing.

I probably should have posted more to make it clearer, but it was just the claim that that they could not guarantee that their cameras were merchantable that caught my eye, so that's the only bit I posted. Here's the link for those who want to read the whole story:

http://www.figuiere.net/hub/blog/?2005/06/04/201-canon-and-raw-file-official-statement

Cheers

[sirhc55]

After reading the full statement I still consider it not to make sense. There is no company on earth that warrants merchantability.

The reason that most of us on this forum, run with the D70, is because we believed in our own minds that it was better than Canon. Therefore, Canon’s merchantability failed to convince us - so where is the warranty within this situation?

Likewise, there is no warranty on usage of a camera - if a camera fails through a breakdown in an integral part of the camera, and it is under warranty, then it will be repaired. But take it into Canon or Maxwell with water dripping from the innards and sand caked on the lens and it will not be repaired under warranty. The reason - improper usage and therefore not under warranty. Quid pro quo

[Wacky]

I can see the point Chris is making, and have to agree. Some further research ona Fed Gov site revealed

Subsection 71(1) of the TPA implies a condition of merchantable quality in a contract for supply of goods to a consumer by a corporation in the course of a business. The condition is not implied where the consumer has examined the goods and that examination ought to have revealed any defect, or the defect is specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the contract is made.

Subsection 66(2) states that goods are of merchantable quality if 'they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.' The goods must be reasonably fit for all the purposes for which goods of the kind are commonly bought.

Suppliers of services must also ensure that any materials provided in connection with services are reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are supplied (subsection 74(1)). This is as close as the TPA comes to requiring services to be of merchantable quality.

The consumer or successor in title may also have rights against the manufacturer of goods under subsection 74D(1) of Division 2A of the TPA. This provision imposes a statutory liability on the part of the manufacturer to compensate the consumer or subsequent owner if the goods are not of merchantable quality.

The manufacturer will not be liable where the goods are unmerchantable by reason of:

an act or default of any person (not being the manufacturer or a servant/ agent of the manufacturer), or a cause independent of human control, occurring after the goods have left the control of the corporation; or
if defects are specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the making of the contract; or
if the consumer examines the goods before that contract is made, defects that the examination ought to reveal.

So basically, my understanding is, as long as the manufacturer is upfront about their product's details, they are in the clear.

And, the buyer has a responsibility to examine the goods prior to sale, and if something would reasonably be discovered, in this case the encrypted RAW formats, and the consumer goes ahead and buys the goods, then tough cookies basically....so it seems, but IANAL.

So if you don't like it, then you shouldn't buy it...I guess that's the moral ofthe story.

However, I'd have thought something like this would be like the MS anti-trust thing, where you are forced to buy product B from the company in order to use product A....thoughts?

[digitor]

After reading the full statement I still consider it not to make sense. There is no company on earth that warrants merchantability.

Of course there is - most if not all companies I would say! As always, with these sorts of nit-picking discussions, it all hinges on definitions, and here are a couple of interest:

war·ran·ty n. pl. war·ran·ties
Official authorization, sanction, or warrant.

in Law:
An assurance by the seller of property that the goods or property are as represented or will be as promised.


mer·chant·able adj.

: of commercially acceptable quality : characterized by fitness for normal use, good quality, and accord with any statements or promises made on the packaging or label.

So, we can see from the above, that all that warranting merchantability means is that the manufacturer assures that the goods are as described! It has no connotations as to which item is "better" than another, that is purely a matter of opinion. Warranting merchantability means that the goods are fit for sale, and will perform as described.

I didn't think the Canon marketing guy's statement made that much sense either, hence my initial thought that the writer must have been having a bad day.

Cheers