Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Cholly is completely wrong as regards history, as are you. You can't acquire history. You can acquire rights of use, assets, brand names and other things, but that does not change history. When does the history of the United States of America begin? It cannot begin prior to the existence of the United States of America. Prior to that the history belongs to other peoples: Native Americans, Mexicans, Europeans and others. The actual date of when the United States came into existence is still being argued, it certainly isn't before 1776. Many would argue that it was 1789, but the debate continues.

To look at your car analogy, your Chevy truck is a GM product today, but history appears to show that Chevrolet actually acquired General Motors at one point in time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet . The history doesn't change, ownership of the brand names may do so, but their role in history is immutable.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

You purchased her and are still paying for her.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

You are so wrong. But I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Peter, we're arguing semantics here, and the only reason I took up the argument was your piss-poor attitude calling Cholly names and arrogantly dismissing any opinion that differed from your own as ignorant. You keep using people to support your argument, when any reasonable argument would exclude people -- unless, perhaps, the argument is about slavery.

Look at it this way: The history of an entity such as Konica-Minolta is unchanged, as you say. Indeed, it continues even today -- with a different owner and a different name, but it continues. The a-mount, the lenses which are now labeled Sony but which use the specs developed under the KM badge, and much, much more. I think we can agree on that. So when Sony acquired KM's photographic division, it acquired lock, stock, and barrell -- including its history. Sony attached its name to KM, so KM -- and its history -- is now Sony.

I won't arrogantly expect you to not understand this, though you may not agree that this may be viewed from different perspectives. It's certainly not something that warrants name calling and insults.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Gecko. I did accuse Cholly of being a shill for Sony, which his behavior emulates. It is a derogatory term, and I probably shouldn't have used it, since to be a shill usually includes being paid by the person or company being promoted, and I doubt that Cholly is actually being paid by Sony. That much said he frequently goes over the top in his evangelism for Sony to the point of expressing inappropriate bias which does undermine his otherwise excellent contributions. It's just the same as those people that do the same for Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm or any other vendor. When it is over done it frequently causes people to disregard the whole lot, including the good points. It also encourages people that hold different viewpoints to push back. The same goes for camera formats such as mirrorless or M4/3 etc. when the primary justification is because people are getting too old and frail to manage or want to bother with other types of equipment. It is certainly a factor, and perhaps the dominant factor for certain individuals, but not for the entire population.

Next, the following words are yours: "arrogantly dismissing any opinion that differed from your own as ignorant." I don't recall calling Cholly or your good self ignorant. I just said that as far as the attribution of history is concerned Cholly and you are both wrong. Sony can clearly absorb the legacy of the Konica Minolta history arc as far as cameras are concerned but it does not and can not own that history. You may consider this to be an academic point, or semantics if you wish, but the principles are simple and immutable. Konica's history is Konica's history. Minolta's history is Minolta's history. When both companies engaged in joint operations they had a shared history from that point forward, with a merger in 2003. The camera division of Konica Minolta only became Sony's history from the point in time when collaboration began and the acquisition was ultimately completed in the 2006 / 2007 time frame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konica_Minolta

The bottom line here is that history is not a commercial entity that can be bought or sold, there is no legal precedent for purchasing history, so Sony cannot own Minolta's history. Sony has the right to leverage Minolta's legacy. It is doing so fairly well, since Sony was nowhere is the high end still camera market until it acquired Minolta, and probably knows that it would not be without the Minolta acquisition. Sony's history in the DSLR market essential began in the 2006 / 2007 time frame. To claim anything else is indeed arrogance.

So to close, the reason that I am pushing back on Cholly and your good self is that you are both being extremely arrogant by making claims that have no actual basis in fact. This undermines both of your positions which are based upon opinion, but not on fact or established practice.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

You really ARE stubborn aren't you?

You are ALSO one the very few people who maintains this standard for "company history" Peter. There are numerous examples of previous and predecessor companies being included in history and historical time lines of current corporations. Even in the photographic products industry. This includes the aforementioned Konica, and You know this. So just stop it.



The word "shill" is a pejorative and I take exception to you continuing to refer to me as one.

Sony as you have said yourself is not only innovative, but makes EXCELLENT photo products that are in many cases industry class leading. This fact is both undeniable and irrefutable.

THAT is what I do; point out that fact. I don't lie or exaggerate or bend the truth or cite "alternative facts". As it says in my signature, I AM a self-confessed Sony fan. That does NOT however mean that what I say is not true, nor that I am a "shill" as you put it. I hope you understand the difference.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

DG, the irony of your post is folk saying that we can't count Minolta history as Sony history have absolutely NO problem saying that Konica Minolta history should stand on it's own... the irony being, that Konica was a separate company that acquired Minolta.

I wonder if they would feel differently had the post 2006 merger name been Sony Minolta?

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

^^^Even if this post had been AGAINST the position I am taking here, I could not help but acknowledge both the veracity and well thought out logic it represents. It is EXCELLENT... and that's not me sucking up; it's me recognizing a great argument when I see one.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Then stop behaving like one.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Yes, I am stubborn in some respects. Especially when it comes to factual accuracy and established practices. If you have numerous examples that withstand scrutiny then cite them. So far you have only expressed questionable opinions. The company histories of both Konica and Minolta and others typically refer to historical fact according to a timeline until some other event occurs. Both Konica (1873) and Minolta (1928) preceded the existence of Sony by decades, which as an organization did not exist prior to 1946 and didn't adopt the name Sony until 1958, and so did not legally exist until that time. Sony cannot legitimately lay claim to any history prior to its existence in 1958. Absorbing the legacy of other acquired companies yes, but that is not history.

As far as I am concerned you do not apparently care about actual facts, you present somewhat overstated opinions which are highly subjective and undermine the value of the information that you present to an objective observer. You essentially present Sony propaganda and not an objective assessment. You may as well be a shill for the company even if you don't get paid for what you do. In my opinion many of your posts lack honesty and integrity from an objective market assessment perspective.

Post what you want, but you have convinced me that the majority your posts are not worth reading. However, I certainly will not stop responding to you when I think you are misrepresenting the situation or established facts. You might consider this as fact checking, and that you are presenting 'alternative facts' to the UHH community which is less than honest or credible. Is that clear enough for you?

I'm certainly not knocking Sony, as I have tried to express, I think they are delivering excellent products and are clearly getting to the point where they are playing with the market leaders. They have an opportunity to shake up the game, but I sincerely believe that your overstated 'evangelism' does the company more harm than good. Do you want to be Sony's Cassandra?

Sony is doing a great job now, and they do not need to make questionable or unsupportable claims on a fictional history to support their current achievements.

Desert Gecko Loc: desert southwest, USA

Excellent point, my friend. Some people are either close-minded or are too stubborn to admit that they are wrong, and even continue to argue a losing position. Some will deflect the same argument his counterpart used, and even attempt to add credibility by citing irrelevant and dubious sources, such as Wikipedia -- a source generally not acceptable as a reference in academia.

I delight in your enthusiasm, Cholly, and I can recall reading your praises of other brands' cameras. Not only are you not a shill, I would not even label you a Sony fanboi.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

So Gecko, Cholly, go find references about the ability to own or trade in history. You guys give zero references, even if you don't like wikipedia. I only cite wikipedia to outline the timeline. If you wish to contest the dates or claimed 'facts' in Wikipedia then feel free to do so and offer other credible sources. The issue here is simply about the ability to 'own' and trade 'ownership' of history, not the rights to use or leverage technology, IP, assets or other things 'post acquisition'.

You guys are offering nothing except bluster and bravado, but no credible evidence to support your position. Where is the evidence that ownership of history can be transferred or traded?

The ball is in your court, and so far you have nothing. It would appear that both of you are too stubborn to admit that you could be the ones in the wrong, and the losing proposition is yours. Two of you making the same mistakes doesn't actually make you correct. You are far to easy to play!

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

I am disappointed Peter...

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

You may be disappointed, but why does that matter? I'm disappointed in you, I thought you were better than that. Are you disappointed because you are wrong, because you are an overly strong evangelist for Sony without any substantive evidence to support your rhetoric, or for some other reason? Perhaps it is because I've called you out to support your opinions and yet you seem unable or unwilling to do so with any evidence to back them up?

Once again, I have nothing against Sony, I think they are doing a great job, but I stand my ground on this until or unless you are able to support your position. So far, you have failed to come to the plate.