JAT Observatory
Space Freak
Reged: 02/20/05
Posts: 5652
Loc: Eastern PA
|
|
http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/images/RC_vs_Meade.pdf
--------------------
-Marcus
The problem with free speech is even the stupid have a voice.
http://jatobservatory.org
12" LX200R on a Paramount ME
|
NeoDinian
Experienced Postmaster
Reged: 10/05/05
Posts: 12070
Loc: Rockford Illinois
|
|
Hahahaha......
So many names in this one... I'd love to see how this turns out. 
Better get your RCX or LX200R soon! May not be able to after this one!...
--------------------
Neo... (Jeff)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
10" LX200-GPS/SMT UHTC "Draco"
 Rockford, Il.
NeoDinian's Eye on the Sky!
Coming soon:
|
Ben Ritchie
Lost in Space
Reged: 01/31/05
Posts: 4339
Loc: Bosham, UK
|
|
I guess they may have something of a point - the RCX and LX200R is pretty heavily marketed as a RC when it isn't - but there's some fairly daft stuff in there. 78 and 84 are faily laughable, and some of it doesn't even make sense: "[users] may be aware that the Meade telescopes do not have true Ritchey-Chretien optics and thus will be unaware of aberrations in the images they view" 
as for "Photographs viewed by the scientific community will not be scientifically accurate"... 
--------------------
Astro-Physics 130EDT StarFire, 80ED (x2), 305mm f/5 dob, VLT
Astro-Physics 1200GTO, evolved HEQ5/pro
Coronado SM60/BF10, 3-6 Nagler zoom, 8 & 13 Ethos, 28UWAN
|
Mapman
member
Reged: 09/08/06
Posts: 45
Loc: Kansas
|
|
From Meade's initial announcement it was clear the optics were NOT classic RC.
http://www.freshnews.com/news/orange-county/article_28055.html
The Popular Science Best of 2005 award for the ADVANCED RC points out its optical character - Meade isn't hiding anything.
Sounds like Meade built a better mousetrap and these guys don't like it. Do they think ANYBODY spends this kind of $$$$ and doesn't research the product?
|
Ben Ritchie
Lost in Space
Reged: 01/31/05
Posts: 4339
Loc: Bosham, UK
|
|
I also find it hard to believe that many people in the market for a Ritchey-Chrétien would confuse a true R-C with a RCX or LX200R, even if there are descriptions like "f/8 Ritchey-Chrétien optical tube assembly with UHTC group optics". My guess would be that anybody who would be fooled by the marketing is coming from the lower-end of the market, and wouldn't buy a 'real' Ritchey-Chrétien anyway.
I don't know if Meade built a better mousetrap or not, but they built a significantly cheaper mousetrap. Still, if you specifically ask if the RCX is a "Ritchey-Chrétien" telescope and get told "yes" then maybe that's a bit much, I think the correct answer might be "no, it's a modified Ritchey-Chrétien" design.
--------------------
Astro-Physics 130EDT StarFire, 80ED (x2), 305mm f/5 dob, VLT
Astro-Physics 1200GTO, evolved HEQ5/pro
Coronado SM60/BF10, 3-6 Nagler zoom, 8 & 13 Ethos, 28UWAN
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie again
Reged: 04/30/03
Posts: 22464
Loc: NE Ohio
|
|
Quote:
I guess they may have something of a point - the RCX and LX200R is pretty heavily marketed as a RC when it isn't - but there's some fairly daft stuff in there.
It'll be interesting to watch. Since RCOS didn't create and doesn't own the RC design (and is only one of several manufacturers offering it) all they can claim is lost sales. They have a stiff burden to meet. They'll have to convince a jury that they lost $400K in OTA sales due to buyers relying an the ads in switching to Meade gear which isn't even offered in OTA form. First, they'll have to convince a judge that they have a way to do that.
If it makes it past summary judgement, at least we'll finally get to see their actual sales figures for the period in question, which will satisfy my idle curiosity.
--------------------
John C
Urban Observatory
Tele Vue Pronto
A&M/Astreya 76mm F/6 APO
TMB/LOMO 80mm F/7.5 APO
Tak FSQ-106N F/5 APO
Meade 152ED F/9 "APO"
152mm F/10 achromat
Tak CN-212 8" F/12 classical Cass/ F/4 Newt
Teeter 20" F/3.8 truss Newt w/ServoCat
LXD750, EM-200, CI-700
ST-10XME
|
NeoDinian
Experienced Postmaster
Reged: 10/05/05
Posts: 12070
Loc: Rockford Illinois
|
|
Mapman:
"Advanced Ritchey-Chretien"
"However, the new Meade RCX400 is more that just a classic Richey-Chretien. "Proprietary enhancements to the RCX400's optical system," said Baun, "take the optical design even further, allowing the RCX400 to significantly outperform traditional Richey-Chretien telescopes of similar size."
From that article, the way I read it is Meade is claiming to be "BETTER" than RC. (ADVANCED rc, significantly outperform...) This is partly what has RC in an uproar. These statements are not true, and as a result, Meade is making "False" statements.
John:
RCOS isn't claiming "copyright" infringements... As you stated, they don't own the design, but they CAN claim the loss of sales as they are because of how Meade is marketing. As for proving it, they can do a simple comparison of sales Prior to the release of the new Meades, and after. That shows the proof.
Of course, somehow I doubt that they would get 1.2M each... But that customer would probably get the 8k... And Meades ad's would be changed really quick.
Another thing to keep in mind is the potential downfall of this "IF" the suit is granted... There could easily be a large Class-Action suit filed (By the same lawfirm!)... Everyone who purchased an RCX or LX200R would get a letter in the mail asking if they felt they were wronged, and to join in on the class-action... Meade could be doing a LOT of FULL Refunds, and possibly more.
This could be VERY bad for Meade.
--------------------
Neo... (Jeff)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
10" LX200-GPS/SMT UHTC "Draco"
Rockford, Il.
NeoDinian's Eye on the Sky!
Coming soon:
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie again
Reged: 04/30/03
Posts: 22464
Loc: NE Ohio
|
|
Quote:
From that article, the way I read it is Meade is claiming to be "BETTER" than RC. (ADVANCED rc, significantly outperform...) This is partly what has RC in an uproar. These statements are not true, and as a result, Meade is making "False" statements.
I can't prove or disprove the statement. From the graphs I've seen it could well be true. Those statements are definitely not the topic of this suit (and if they could be proven untrue then a suit based on that would have a MUCH higher likelihood of prevailing than this one). The fact that they've chosen to go this way instead implies to me that they are acknowledging the truth of the statements.
Quote:
As for proving it, they can do a simple comparison of sales Prior to the release of the new Meades, and after. That shows the proof.
Certainly not. There are several other RC makers out there and RCOS could have lost sales that went to them. The telescope industry is in a slump so their revenues would be down no matter what. They could have lost sales to Meade based on the "Advanced RC" label, which would not contribute to the losses they can claim under this suit. Their burden will be to prove that they lost substantial numbers of sales of $40,000 instruments to folks willing to pay that much but too ignorant to know that an advanced RC for 10% of the price isn't identical to an RC. I doubt that many such folks exist.
As a litigator myself, I read this as a publicity stunt. There are sanctions available for abuse of process and they are taking a chance that could cost them dearly.
--------------------
John C
Urban Observatory
Tele Vue Pronto
A&M/Astreya 76mm F/6 APO
TMB/LOMO 80mm F/7.5 APO
Tak FSQ-106N F/5 APO
Meade 152ED F/9 "APO"
152mm F/10 achromat
Tak CN-212 8" F/12 classical Cass/ F/4 Newt
Teeter 20" F/3.8 truss Newt w/ServoCat
LXD750, EM-200, CI-700
ST-10XME
|
Ben Ritchie
Lost in Space
Reged: 01/31/05
Posts: 4339
Loc: Bosham, UK
|
|
I must say that the more I think about this the more daft it seems.
There may be individual cases of people who were told by dealers that they were getting a Ritchey-Chrétien design when they've ordered a RCX or LX200R, but that seems to me to be a contractual matter between the purchaser and dealer (and, at least under UK law, it might require the purchaser to have received less than they reasonably expected, which might be hard to prove if the A-RC optics are good). I can't see how Meade's marketing or some inaccurate statements on a Dealer's website would make somebody pick an LX200R or RCX over a RCOS at many times the price. People in the market for a RCOS 'scope wouldn't be expected to make that kind of mistake.
One thing that would be interesting is a scientific optical comparison between the RC and A-RC designs to establish the "aberrations in the images they view" through Meade's design that aren't in "true Ritchey-Chretien optics". RCX optics are generally held to be very good indeed.
--------------------
Astro-Physics 130EDT StarFire, 80ED (x2), 305mm f/5 dob, VLT
Astro-Physics 1200GTO, evolved HEQ5/pro
Coronado SM60/BF10, 3-6 Nagler zoom, 8 & 13 Ethos, 28UWAN
|
JerryWise
Postmaster
Reged: 12/26/03
Posts: 6876
Loc: Lexington, SC
|
|
Quote:
..........Their burden will be to prove that they lost substantial numbers of sales of $40,000 instruments to folks willing to pay that much but too ignorant to know that an advanced RC for 10% of the price isn't identical to an RC. .........
That is flaming priceless John. 
Jeff.... I enjoy your going up against John on this but I bet I already know how it will turn out.
And folks, if there is a class action triple refund for purchasers of the RCX and LX200R I have won the lottery. 
But I have thought they walked a little close to the line with that "Hubble in your own backyard". Those marketing lines bring in the less gifted like me.
--------------------
Jerry
LX200ACF 14", Tak FS 152 & TOA 150
AP-1200 & Mach1
|
JAT Observatory
Space Freak
Reged: 02/20/05
Posts: 5652
Loc: Eastern PA
|
|
Quote:
But I have thought they walked a little close to the line with that "Hubble in your own backyard". Those marketing lines bring in the less gifted like me.
--------------------
-Marcus
The problem with free speech is even the stupid have a voice.
http://jatobservatory.org
12" LX200R on a Paramount ME
|
AstroArlo
sage
Reged: 01/29/06
Posts: 383
Loc: Jackson Hole, Wyoming
|
|
Perhaps their real purpose is not money but to get Meade to quit advertising their RCX as a Ritchey-Chretien, when any perusal of telescope design literature clearly demostrates that the RCX does not fit the "criteria" for an R-C, but fits the criteria for a catadioptric, and really fits the criteria for a Schmidt-Cassegrain. Both RCOS and Star Instruments have huge backlogs in orders, so I'm not so sure that money is that big of factor for them.
However, if I manufactured an extremely high quality instrument, had a great reputation, and someone made a "cheap knockoff" (no insult intended to RCX owners, RCX's seem to have good optical performance) I would probably have the same reaction.
As far as performance goes, I've stated before that "if" the RCX has better performance than a true R-C, Meade should have marketed the scopes as what they really are - modified Schmidt-Cassegrains optimized for imaging. So, if you have an optical design which is "better" than available designs, why do you market it as the old design, other than to simply cash in on the latest fad.
I don't believe it will be too hard for the plantiffs to demonstrate that the "Ritchey-Chretien" is the soup-de-jour, especially in the hot CCD astrophotography market, and that Meade was trying to get a foothold in the market.
Law and legal proceedings are challenging territory, and sometimes hard to predict. This one will be interesting to watch. I think it has only upside potential for RCOS/Star Instruments, but a huge downside for Meade.
Is Celestron destined to be the only major telescope manufacturer in a year or two???
--------------------
Best Regards, Arlo
Grand Cosmic Observatory, Jackson Hole, Wyoming
CATS/CASS - 20" RCOS Ritchey-Chretien, C14, C8
REFRACTORS - 155mm Astro-Physics Starfire EDF w/4" Focuser, 102mm Televue Genesis, 78mm FS Takahashi
ASTROGRAPHS - 8" Lichtenecker Flat Field Camera, 6" JSO Schmidt Camera
MOUNTS - Paramount ME, Losmandy GM200, Takahashi EM-100
CCD/IMAGING - SBIG STS-4, SBIG STL-11000M
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie again
Reged: 04/30/03
Posts: 22464
Loc: NE Ohio
|
|
Quote:
Perhaps their real purpose is not money but to get Meade to quit advertising their RCX as a Ritchey-Chretien,
. . .
Both RCOS and Star Instruments have huge backlogs in orders, so I'm not so sure that money is that big of factor for them.
That's a pretty good definition of abuse of process. If true, the risk from bringing this action is great and the potential benefits nonexistent.
--------------------
John C
Urban Observatory
Tele Vue Pronto
A&M/Astreya 76mm F/6 APO
TMB/LOMO 80mm F/7.5 APO
Tak FSQ-106N F/5 APO
Meade 152ED F/9 "APO"
152mm F/10 achromat
Tak CN-212 8" F/12 classical Cass/ F/4 Newt
Teeter 20" F/3.8 truss Newt w/ServoCat
LXD750, EM-200, CI-700
ST-10XME
|
JAT Observatory
Space Freak
Reged: 02/20/05
Posts: 5652
Loc: Eastern PA
|
|
Quote:
Is Celestron destined to be the only major telescope manufacturer in a year or two???
If Meade continues the way they are going that may be true. It is rumored that Meade lost $15 million last year, $1.5M the 1st qtr of this year and $6M in the 2nd qtr. That is $66k a day! The SEC has given them til Nov 27th to file their report or be delisted.
--------------------
-Marcus
The problem with free speech is even the stupid have a voice.
http://jatobservatory.org
12" LX200R on a Paramount ME
|
inaPICle
sage
Reged: 04/28/06
Posts: 278
Loc: Under cloudy skies in NH
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Is Celestron destined to be the only major telescope manufacturer in a year or two???
If Meade continues the way they are going that may be true. It is rumored that Meade lost $15 million last year, $1.5M the 1st qtr of this year and $6M in the 2nd qtr. That is $66k a day! The SEC has given them til Nov 27th to file their report or be delisted.
They will also be restating previous earning because of "stock options irregularities."
Expect those losses to be restated and larger once that happens.
--------------------
inaPICle
========
|
southmike
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/22/04
Posts: 2821
Loc: Fayetteville, NC
|
|
hmm just my 2 cents ...but nothing good will come about this deal...that is fer sure.
--------------------
group scope pic
my refractors
LX200 10"-St120
LX200 8" f6.3-Orion 80ed
LX200 8" f10-Orion 90 Mak setup pic
Meade 102ED LXD650
Sky Watcher 100 ED Triplet prototype
Nexstar 5
etx125
etx70's
|
Alex^DJ^
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/02/05
Posts: 1200
Loc: Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.
|
|
I think the problem resides on how they market the RCX and LX200R...using that word RC on them when they werent true RC's i think that's misleading (i am not in favor or against meade).. they have to change that statement on their publicity and say: Super Cassegraine, or Astrophotography cassegraine... or whataver but not use RC because RC is not on their system... what would the publicity branch or meade maybe thinking now??? I just hope meade can come with a deal on this... I think they have been screwing up a lot of things over there and need some shaking (starting with a good customer help)...
Hope this comes good..for both parties..
--------------------
My Telescopes and Equipment:
- WO 66SD scope
- ETX-125 (Soon to be sold) "My Big Fat Mak"
- C6-ASGT " The Mexican "
- Starshoot CCD Cam
- Nextimagen Planetary Cam
- Canon EOS Rebel XTi (400D Unmoded)
Eyepices and Accesories:
- Celestron E-Lux 25mm
- GSO Superview 20mm
- GSO Superview 15mm
- ADM dual saddle plate
- 100mm Guide rings
- Orion 2X Shorty barlow
- Garmin E-Trex GPS handheld
|
Moggi1964
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 2512
Loc: Madison. NJ. USA
|
|
I'm glad I got my LX200R back before Meade go into Chapter 11 or whatever it is they go into!
It may not come to that of course.... 
--------------------
Morris
WO Megrez 80 ED F/7
WO 8x42 binoculars
Seymor Rosin F/4.5 Astrograph in the making
|
inaPICle
sage
Reged: 04/28/06
Posts: 278
Loc: Under cloudy skies in NH
|
|
Quote:
I'm glad I got my LX200R back before Meade go into Chapter 11 or whatever it is they go into!
It may not come to that of course....
Right now I would say that Meade is a good aquisition target. Meade itself is an established name and it also owns Weaver, Redfield and Simmons that are decent enough names in hunting and sporting optics. Those names alone are worthwhile assets.
I think Meade tried to become a player in the general optics market rather than in astronomy and I think they have lost their way.
They did have a few quality hiccups with the RCX and the LX200R series and the fact they are loosing money points very strongly to huge pressure to get new high margin products that are not yet ready out the door. This does not bode well in my book for the MAX series of mounts.
I am wondering who is waiting in the wings to swoop down.
--------------------
inaPICle
========
|
DARKSOLSTICE2
super member
Reged: 12/16/05
Posts: 152
Loc: Murfreesboro,Tn
|
|
The whole thing is a big load of *Gosh, dang dibbity dag nabbit* if you ask me !! they may have claimed it was a Ritchey-Chretien, but they never claimed it was a Star Instruments or a RCOS so I don't see how they can sue at all!! also the people that buy Meade don't buy Star or RCOS or vice versa huge price diff. They make it sound like they were selling fake Rolexes, give me a break, just shows how sue happy America is, I have a problem so it must be somebodys fault, hey it can't be me, noway !! look around, it the slow economy, high prices, low wages, I truly hope this just dies, if Meade loses, we all lose, the sell a very good product at a reasonable price. and yes I am a Meade fanboy, and will be the first to admit it!
--------------------
8' LX200 GPS
DSI CAMERA
"no man is free if he restricts others"
|
WebFoot
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 506
Loc: Redmond, WA, USA
|
|
Well, I sure hope that the plaintiffs get smacked, both with a resounding loss on the merits, and sanctions.
Their scopes and the RCX400 occupy different price points. I'm sure that Meade got some good, educated legal opinions on their use of RC in their marketing.
And I (and I would hope anyone else getting ready to part with even the cost of an RCX400, much less an RCOS product) certainly couldn't care less what the label attached to my optics is. I do care very much about how my optics perform, however, and this scope has excellent optics.
In order to prevail, the plaintiffs will have to prove (i) Meade's advertising is false and misleading (beyond the normal puffery allowed in advertising, such as BMW's "ultimate driving machine" claims) (ii) consumers are misled by such advertising into buying the scopes, which they wouldn't otherwise have purchased, and (iii) the plaintiffs are damaged by that.
None of those things will be easy to prove; proving all of them will be very difficult.
It appears that the plaintiffs have hired a solo practitioner in an outlying New York town, rather than a "real" law firm, in or around NYC. I infer from that that they shopped for a while to find someone who would take this on a contingent basis. Kind of makes me wonder how much they believe in the strength of their own case.
It'll be interesting theater, I suppose, but the very filing of the lawsuit has been bad for amateur astronomers, IMO, and the longer it is a live case, the worse it is.
--------------------
12" RCX400
10" LX200 Classic
Meade 102ED/LXD 650 mount
Sky90
SBIG ST-8XE/AO-7/CFW8
http://www.de-regt.com/Astronomy
|
Alex^DJ^
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/02/05
Posts: 1200
Loc: Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico.
|
|
WEll strange enough i wouldd say that they are not selling real RC's...real RC are different..period. I am not bashing meade, i just think they should not use misleading advertising, that's all (hey they have use a lot of that now and then, not new really) if it's a real RC then say it out all they way you want...if it's not then say what's it really. It's like saying i have an etx it's mak apo because it is color free images... and we lal know that's not the case..
Meade should learn from mistakes i guess..and they put themselves in this problem (at least i dont know of RC scope have to pay something to real RC creator family or something like that because of the dessing...dont know)..
Meade it's good company but sometimes their tactis are not so good.
Let see how this ends..
--------------------
My Telescopes and Equipment:
- WO 66SD scope
- ETX-125 (Soon to be sold) "My Big Fat Mak"
- C6-ASGT " The Mexican "
- Starshoot CCD Cam
- Nextimagen Planetary Cam
- Canon EOS Rebel XTi (400D Unmoded)
Eyepices and Accesories:
- Celestron E-Lux 25mm
- GSO Superview 20mm
- GSO Superview 15mm
- ADM dual saddle plate
- 100mm Guide rings
- Orion 2X Shorty barlow
- Garmin E-Trex GPS handheld
|
Joad
Wordsmith
Reged: 03/22/05
Posts: 11919
|
|
Presuming that this case makes it to trial (and that's a big if), I find myself wondering how I would react to it as a potential juror, especially if I knew nothing about amateur astronomy equipment (it's interesting to speculate as to whether either legal counsel would allow knowledgeable jurors on the panel should it go to a jury trial). Counsel for the plaintiff will make the case that the RCX and LX200R scopes aren't Ritchey-Chretiens. Counsel for defense won't be able to refute that but will say that they were presented as Advanced Ritchey-Chretiens, not as Ritchey-Chretiens. If I knew nothing about telescopes, I think I would take this as hair splitting, as quibbling.
But it ain't even past a judge yet. An unfortunate story. I will be very interested to see how it plays out.
|
mmagrunmo
sage
Reged: 04/26/05
Posts: 201
|
|
I tend to agree with you Joad. But.... having just read the lawsuit, it seems like the plaintiffs contacted dealers asking to buy an RC telescope and were told that the RCX was one. And one dealer sold them one. They also mention email exchanges where plaintiffs contacted dealers looking to buy an RC telescope and claim that the dealers emailed back that the RCX was one. I guess no one will know if that is true until/unless it moves forward.
Damages are hard to prove and the devil is in the details, but if the plaintiffs actually have emails that seem to misrepresent, thats different than placing the word "Advanced" in front of the words "Ritchey-Chretien" on an ad with a wink and a nod.
Not sure I could back either horse in this race.
Mike
|
JAT Observatory
Space Freak
Reged: 02/20/05
Posts: 5652
Loc: Eastern PA
|
|
Bending the truth or word smithing to make something appear as something its really not, seems to be a marketing poly that a lot of companies take, and it always rubs me the wrong way.
--------------------
-Marcus
The problem with free speech is even the stupid have a voice.
http://jatobservatory.org
12" LX200R on a Paramount ME
|
Moggi1964
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/05
Posts: 2512
Loc: Madison. NJ. USA
|
|
Mike,
it sounds like the dealers are misrepresenting the scope and unless they have something from meade telling them to sell the scopes as RC (not ARC) then it seems to me it is the dealers who will be in most trouble.
Mind you I'm not a lawyer and I'm a Brit so what do I know about it!!
--------------------
Morris
WO Megrez 80 ED F/7
WO 8x42 binoculars
Seymor Rosin F/4.5 Astrograph in the making
|
Ben Ritchie
Lost in Space
Reged: 01/31/05
Posts: 4339
Loc: Bosham, UK
|
|
Quote:
Bending the truth or word smithing to make something appear as something its really not, seems to be a marketing poly that a lot of companies take, and it always rubs me the wrong way.
Me too, but there's a lot of leeway in advertising - when Dell sell something that will be out of date in three months as the 'ultimate gaming machine' then that's "mere puff", not grounds for a lawsuit.
I don't think Meade ever said the telescopes are Ritchey-Chrétians. My guess is that wooly advertising phrases like "Ritchey-Chrétian optics" are ok too, because you can argue that it could mean a number of things - does it mean that it is a RC design, or that the optics have the characteristics of a RC design, or...? After all Apochromat seems to mean a lot of things, and there are certainly telescopes advertised as Apochromatic that will show plenty of false colour. Can I sue Synta because my old 80ED showed a touch of violet when viewing a mag -4 Venus?
I think the only real claim here would require RCOS to prove that they lost real sales because Meade and/or a dealer misrepresented the Meade telescope as a real Ritchey-Chrétian *and* the customer then purchased a Meade instead of a RCOS. It seems there are examples of the first, but linking it to the second requirement seems very hard. The fact that their example customer purchased a LX200R believing it (rightly or wrongly) to be a RC design does not mean that he would have purchased a RCOS had he been correctly informed.
--------------------
Astro-Physics 130EDT StarFire, 80ED (x2), 305mm f/5 dob, VLT
Astro-Physics 1200GTO, evolved HEQ5/pro
Coronado SM60/BF10, 3-6 Nagler zoom, 8 & 13 Ethos, 28UWAN
|
JerryWise
Postmaster
Reged: 12/26/03
Posts: 6876
Loc: Lexington, SC
|
Re: Star Instruments & RCOS vs. Meade and its Deal
[Re: | |
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
