Dear Readers,
I recently got off the phone with the founder of a watch brand who was recently discussed on this site. He was very calm and polite, and because he was extremely civil and willing to negotiate, I agreed with his wishes to have a negative opinion piece removed from WWR. The threat of a lawsuit was tossed out during this discussion, and, as WWR is a labor of love and the many advertisements I have on the site barely pays for hosting fees, I am unwilling and unable to retain legal council when these sorts of things come up, the threat of which is real and has a chilling effect on electronic discourse. Therefore, I will state the following and this should be used as a guide for anyone else wishing to threaten legal action.
This site may contain opinion based in, in part, on Internet research. As a rule, some Internet research is incorrect. Unless this research is refuted by the parties it effects, it can be considered opinion. The Internet allows readers to accept or ignore opinion, obviously affecting sales or brand awareness, as many major and minor product manufacturers have discovered over the years.
As a rule, negative opinions, posts, and reviews will be removed/edited only when the following conditions are met:
1. The requester sends a detailed description of their manufacturing methods and sales channels.
2. The requester explains their connection with so-called “Ebay Brands” i.e. brands that misrepresent their pedigree, are sold at seemingly a massive loss ($10,000 watches selling for $9.99) and feature movements of known dubious quality while describing themselves as high-quality pieces.
3. The requester can adequately defend their brand/pieces in light of popular opinion and real reviews found online.
One of our goals at WWR is to help the novice and advanced collector learn about an industry that is rife with fraud and copyright infringement. Watch makers misrepresent their pieces all the time by using parts and movements that are sub-par while claiming a long heritage of high quality pieces. This must stop. If, by following the above guidelines, we are able to clear up misconceptions about genuinely legitimate watch manufacturers, I feel we have done the watch community a great service. If a company attacks an entry on this blog with threats of lawsuits and angry comments, then, to quote the Bard, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.” In short, put up or shut up.
Again, the founder of this brand was civil and willing to discuss his watches at length and was amicable to submitting some pieces for review in the future. Watch manufacturers are encouraged to submit watches for review by contacting [email protected] with the assurance that they will be returned undamaged after a brief review period.
If you feel your brand has been wrongly represented, please contact me, John Biggs at [email protected], with the above information.
As a rule, WWR does not in any way represent any one manufacturer and we are completely independent of all manufacturers. The contents of WWR are the sole property and opinion of the editors and neither the web hosting company nor the web hosting reseller are in any way responsible for its content.
The opinions posted on WristWatchReview are solely those of the author. WristWatchReview does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of any message, and WristWatchReview is not responsible for the contents of any post.
