I apologize for the time between updates as I have been attending to both legal and personal obligations. It has been a very eventful finish to 99 and the new year promises to be equally interesting. I am going to sum up the happenings in the ongoing saga since the last update, and also discuss some new findings that are of interest.
The last documents posted on the site were my Statement Of Defence and an updated Readers Writes. Since then, Stanley had their hired guns put forth a couple of motions that, though part of protocol are, in essence, the usual stall tactics.
One was called a "Demand For inspection" and it was essentially a formal demand to inspect the originals of a bunch of documents, many of which are posted on this site. Curiously, some of the documents they wanted were ones that they were already in possession of. The inspection took place on Dec 17/99 in Edmonton, Alberta at the offices of Bishop & McKenzie.
Another document filed by them is called a "Demand For Particulars". This document is a demand of full particulars of all statements and representations alleged in the Statement Of Defence. In my reply to this, which was filed on DEC 17/99, was my recollection of dates, times and with whom certain conversations took place. It seemed a little premature as most of these topics will be sworn to in an affidavit as the court proceedings ensue.
The final document filed by the bad guys was called a "Notice Of Motion" and contained a formal request for them to be granted more time to reply to the Statement Of Defence. Being a reasonable defendant, I made no objection to a time extension for I completely understand that often Uncle Stanley's left hand knows not what his right does.
If one wants to be made fully aware of how Stanley's employees, vendors and investors feel about the company, look no further than the various message board services relating to finance that are all over the Internet. Most notable is Yahoo! Finance, where a very lively community of investors and employees almost daily share their thoughts and feelings about how Stanley is performing. As a grossly under-performing stock in a record market, Bloomberg.com named Stanley number eleven on the twenty most hated stocks (June 1999). The investors have been getting restless, but the employees of Stanley seem to be the ones who have the most on the line.
Seeing the company go through major restructuring and dealing with the aftermath has made many employees live their lives with a degree of uncertainty. Not only had thousands of jobs had been cut, but many employees have a 401k (retirement program). The stress of dealing with job uncertainty and a shrinking retirement plan has become apparent. Many employees have voiced concerns and opinions on message boards, including information that had somehow offended the sensibilities of the powers that be. Yahoo! was notified by Stanley's legal department that they were going to petition the courts to have the identities of six individuals released to them. Many, it seems, are employees and Stanley's legal department has cited "leaking trade secrets" as the reason for the petition. It seems that one fellow, called Roadrasher, who is an employee in the Air Tools division, feels that come January 12/00, when Yahoo! releases his identity, he will be the sacrificial lamb at Air Tools. Another example of Stanley trying to bully those who speak the truth.
It seems Stanley's legal department is one of the busiest in the company. They seem to have cases outstanding from all over the world at any given time, from their home state, where they are currently involved in at least 80 lawsuits, to the frozen north where they are being exposed to the world. There is even a company that provides a service to investors by making public any new lawsuits involving Stanley. In comparison to many other companies similar in size and revenues, they seem to have considerably more outstanding lawsuits. Restructuring is one area of blame used in the past, but the reason most of these suits happen is because Stanley's corporate culture dictates zero flexibility and breeds a smug corporate arrogance that repulses employees, distributors, vendors and investors.
They have used the law, over the years, in a curious way. They have taken laws and argued them at opposite sides in different cases depending on what suits them. A tactic one would expect a company with so much practice in litigation to do. For our friend who is the subject of a witch hunt on the Yahoo! message board, they say he was leaking trade secrets. This is a company with no respect for the trade secrets of others.
In Roton Barrier Vs Stanley Works, it was proven that Stanley appropriated trade secrets that were protected under a confidentiality agreement. In this case, it was shown how Stanley did not posses the technology to produce a specialized hinge. Some time later, it was proposed that Stanley purchase Roton Barrier, the only manufacturer with the patent, technology and know how to make such a hinge. As Stanley prepared to exercise due diligence, Roton Barrier drafted a document binding Stanley to confidence in regards to Roton's trade secrets. The deal fell through, but not before Stanley's people had been through every aspect of Roton Barrier. Stanley's low ball offer was rejected by Roton. A short time later, armed with Roton's trade secrets, Stanley began building a similar hinge. Stanley lost in the courts and lost another piece of Stanley's integrity that took 150 years to build.
As Stanley prepares their case against me, a portion of it is based on trademark infringement for my disclaimed use of their marks, intact or butchered. My defence to this part of their case is essentially that because my site is so blatantly anti-Stanley that it could not be considered their handiwork. In doing so, it is not likely to be considered similar or cause confusion to any reasonable consumer.
In Arrow Fasteners Vs Stanley Works, the plaintiff owned the trademark of their flagship product, the market leading hand operated "T50" staple gun. In this case, Stanley introduced a series of pneumatic staple products under the name Stanley-Bostitch. This series of staplers were called the "T50 series", despite the Arrow trademark of "T50" in relation to staplers. Arrow successfully argued that their trademark was violated by Stanley in their use of "T50" on the pneumatic line of staplers. Yet another example of Stanley's 150 year old integrity being eroded by 90's corporate arrogance.
Since this site was born on September 1/99, I have been contacted by dozens of people with their own versions of now familiar stories. Many have relayed their experiences with Mac /Stanley and, by doing so, have crystallized the true extent of the Mac Tools legal saga. In addition to the cases against Mac mentioned on this site (McNeil, Griffin, Talton,etc) there is currently a class action against Mac in New Jersey because of the ill-fated Automotive Equipment Specialist (AES) program. MacFarlane vs Mac Tools involves a group of ex-employees who have been forced into seeking the familiar avenue of litigation in order to settle their dispute with Mac.
The biggest surprise to me has been the sheer numbers of ex-distributors who have been in similar disputes with Mac. After communicating with a number of them ( many of whom are under a confidentiality agreement), and also with a number of lawyers who have had ex-Mac Distributors as clients, it seems that almost anyone in the U.S. who was a Mac Distributor potentially has a claim. The ex-Distributors with contracts prior to 1994 are potentially more lucrative as the Griffin decision inspired an arbitration clause in all post 1994 contracts. Based on information provided to me by dealers and lawyers alike, I estimate Mac to have settled at least 300 cases while one industry insider says it is closer to 600. This was part of the reasoning behind the change from traditional distributors to the current U.S. practice of the employee system called Mac Direct. Makes me wonder why the would settle anywhere between 300 and 600 cases just like mine in the U.S., but would not consider a settlement or court ordered arbitration with me.
As the corporate machine rolls on, it appears that the ill effects of John Trani's master plan are going to be felt for quite some time to come. A once proud corporate icon has been reduced to a group of scared employees from the assembly floor to the quaking in their boots Board Of Directors who are obviously too fearful to properly direct this company. All seem to be afraid of the tyrant of Stanley who, despite being exponentially smaller than G.M, is paid more than their CEO. The "culture change" Mr. Trani spoke of when he took over Stanley has become a corporate disaster for America's oldest tool company.
The changes seen this decade within the Stanley Works, particularly the last 5 years, have eroded a once proud company into a shadow of it's former self. Now that they have downsized and scuttled a highly skilled labour force and trimmed manufacturing to a minimum, they are now going to forsake the 155 year old name and sell it off. Not the whole company, yet, but just the name. A new initiative underway will see dozens of companies licensed to use the Stanley name on their product. As a customer, one was assured of the quality the Stanley name commanded. As an employee, one was filled with pride in the role taken in the production of fine quality product. The new direction Stanley has taken has left the employee angry and betrayed, and has left the customer to question his loyalty.
Phil McNeil