Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 June 15

= June 15 =

Hiding the Producer of a Product
Hello!

I already asked this here and here, with no luck. I would like the answer so that we may add this phenomenon to the relevant article, as I have not seen it dealt with anywhere on Wikipedia.

Right, here goes. Are there laws prohibiting one company from producing a brand that it sells as being completely separate from itself?

Example: "Company A" is well-known for producing "Brand A". All of a sudden it begins also producing "Brand B", which is a competitor to "Brand A". But nowhere in its advertising, not even in the small print, is it mentioned that "Brand B" is linked in any way to "Company A" or "Brand A".

But when you get to signing a contract for using "Brand B", and only then, do you find out that you are actually signing with "Company A".

Is this some reverse type of passing off, or false advertising, or some other concept altogether? Is it legal, illegal, or a grey area?

Thanks in advance! BigSteve (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Until you got to the bit about signing a contract, I was thinking of home brand or store brand items in supermarkets. In many cases these are produced by the same manufacturers as the branded products nearby on the shelf. It's obviously legal. But your mention of contracts tells us you're thinking of something else. What kind of product are your referring to? HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Any question starting "Are there laws" is going to be virtually impossible to asnwer, as there are so many countries and jurisdictions, not to mention by-laws, which you would need to specify. Nevertheless, I think it very unlikely that there would be such a law anywhere.--Shantavira|feed me 09:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you mean something like Nabob (coffee) and Maxwell House coffee both owned by Kraft Foods? While the Maxwell House can of coffee says it's a product of Kraft there is no way to tell that the Nabob is a Kraft item. The can and package for Nabob says it's imported by the Nabob Coffee Company. Both of these products sit next to each other in both the stores here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Government is men with guns taking tax money from people and using it to force people to obey a set of rules (or rulers). Where does the premise come in that not saying that two products on the market have the same or related manufacturers amount to hiding the fact? And why would the government use its guns to change that situation?  What might be relevant would be things like trademark (Pepsi can't put an inferior 'Coke' on the shelves secretly), food safety regulations mandating the listing of ingredients, or fraud if it is found one branch of a corporation is making false bids for another branch to drive up its stock price. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the answer to the OP's question would depend on the circumstances. "Store brands" are often cheaper versions of the name-brand stuff. That's called "price discrimination", and is generally legal in America, as far as I know. Companies with multiple but parallel brands will often keep both brands due to something called "brand loyalty". For many years, the standard Dodge and Plymouth cars were essentially identical except for the label. Both made by Chrysler, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Badge engineering is the article you're looking for there. -- Jayron  32  02:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Our IP Editor's User page suggests that he's from Bulgaria. I know more about the Womble of that name than about the laws in that country. Anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * With a certain interpretation, the question is not so far-fetched.
 * 25 years or so ago my employment offered me regular opportunities for manufacturing plant tours. One such tour may be exactly what the OP is asking: the local cola "bottling" plant, owned and operated by one of the big names, including their name on the door, (although it was actually a canning operation). They started with sheet aluminum, stamping blanks, drawing the cans, painting them, then storing them by the palletload until that product was to be canned -- fascinating, could have watched that for hours!  And over on one wall was a line of pallets of another company's cans (the green ones, with a seven on them).
 * The economics of the industry are such (or were then) that shipping cans of "mostly water" around the country was more expensive than paying a local bottler to bottle your product. The green can company paid the red can company, not to produce, but only to bottle their product, and we were told that the reverse arrangement most assuredly existed in other states.
 * I re-emphasise that this was not literally assembling from scratch another company's product -- the green can company provided their own ingredients -- but just doing the last step in the process, using local water. This may or may not match your definition of producing another company's product.
 * (I never learned whether the green can company's trucks had to pick up their finished product under cover of darkness or not :-) ).
 * --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @DaHorsesMouth - you may be interested in our article on Dr Pepper (not the green one with a 7 on it, but related); the "bottling, not producing" scheme is still alive and well and from what I've seen, no, they don't pick up in the dead of night :-). Matt Deres (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of laws could be involved, but a few for reference would include Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Lanham Act. Shadowjams (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, folks! Sorry, I was away for a couple of days – thanks for all the replies.


 * About store brands and generic brands – as far as I know, the name of the PARENT company, at the very least the address of the FACTORY, are shown in the small print on the product itself, by law. And when you buy the generic brand, the till receipt/warranty card will have the generic brand's name on it – i.e. the generic brand might have been PRODUCED by another company, but it holds all of its OWN legal rights, separate from the physical producer's.


 * In the example of DaHorsesMouth, that's one big company doing a favor for another big company (for money, obviously) and not telling anyone about it.


 * BOTH of these things I believe are immoral, but they seem to be covered by law and are legal. Which is a shame, but at least we know this sort of stuff goes on.


 * Now, the problem in the original post is different, and I want to get to the bottom of it (it might well be badge engineering, as Jayron32 said?). Without mentioning names – here is the story.


 * It's a large mobile phone company that has its own network. Then it creates an MVNO that, like I said before, doesn't say ANYWHERE in its advertising that it is owned by the large company. The main company's main service and the MVNO now co-exist on the same market, essentially as competitors.


 * So all the advertising is for "Brand B", but its legal rights are entirely owned by "Company A" – i.e. "Brand B" is a facade for "Company A". In the contract it doesn't even specify that "Brand B is a product of Company A". It simply assumes that you already knew that. But you didn't, because they never told you! In the contract, the name of the MVNO is hardly even mentioned, and ALL of the legal stuff in the contract refers ONLY to the main company.


 * Now, many people are extremely unhappy with the main company and have left it for its competitors, so this "trick" seems unreasonable. After all, you're not buying shampoo, you're signing a legal contract. Thanks again! BigSteve (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly unclear why this concerns you. Can you give an actual specific example, and then show where the customer, happy with his service from the "second" provider is actually harmed?  All I can think of in regards to this is Hyacinth Bucket insisting on knowing who gets her electricity first, or that MASH episode where they save the bigot's life with a transfusion from a colored guy. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it's not for us to be commenting on or questioning the motives of our OPs. But that said, I can certainly see why it might bother people.  Sometimes people change providers because the new one provides a better deal, better service etc.  They need not have been unhappy with their original provider in order to switch to a better one, once they become aware of what they'd be missing out on if they didn't.   But sometimes, people switch precisely because they are unhappy with the deal/service they have.  Sometimes they're so unhappy with their experience that they vow never to have any dealings with that company again.  So they switch to a new company.  Imagine their chagrin if they discover they're still dealing with the original company that they vowed on principle not to deal with.  That the new product or service is OK is not the whole point.  There is a little matter of informed consent (that seems to be restricted to medical procedures, but the principle of consent applies more broadly), which should underpin any contract.  People have the right to choose their vendors for any reason that's relevant to them, not just on marketing hype or even on efficacy.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  21:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's up to the OP. There's a huge mother of an unstated premise here, and if he doesn't reveal it he's going to get superficial half guesses as answers.  He's pretty much got the seal of the confession here.  As for not want ing to do business with a certi corporation, perhaps.  But only humans are moral agents, not corporations.  If you get bad business from one entity and good business from another which is related to the first entity on paper, you are still getting good business from the second entity. A desire to punish the second entity because, in effect, it has the same skin color is ...interesting. μηδείς (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On a related note....There is another scheme that might have relevance to the OP.


 * A strategy used by online companies that owns daughter companies, either by proxy through some holding company or less traceable by having seemingly completely different owners.


 * What I have experienced is that, on web site price comparison sites, for electronics at least, there is a top 10 list of the cheapest 'product' of a general product category or specific product, where 3, 4 or maybe 5 of the selling companies listed is actually owned either by the same mother company, or less oblivious, having the circle of owners (board members) being connected.


 * So basically you think there is real competition going on in this 'shopping window' between the sellers of the product you are interested in, but in reality it's more like that you shop at the same online shop...thinking you saved a buck going with the lowest bidder...when in reality your buying from the same onlineshop, just presented with a different website and business adress. 85.81.121.107 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again!


 * it's so not the same as the hyacinth bucket situatuion. and i don't see what the "mother of an unstated premise" is. it's my business why i would or would not want to do business with such and such a company.


 * but, just to make it even clearer – the reason i switched cellphone providers is because of the appalling customer service and extortionate hidden charges for innocuous things, such as paying $4 for switching off your voicemail (i know, it's a one-off charge, but it's the principle - why can all the other cellphone networks have this as a free service?!).


 * so, by changing networks, i was expecting something different. turns out, it's identical, because it's the same company. but you wouldn't know that from the advertising, because no one tells you.


 * Jack of Oz - thank you - i had indeed vowed never to have any dealings with that company again.


 * and, while many people would not read the small print, which might well make it "their problem" for not being careful, that still does not make it a fair business practice. BigSteve (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

telmisartan tablets
what are the harmful effects of telmisartan tablets? is blackening of a leg a sympton of the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prachi bhavesh shah (talk • contribs) 06:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We cannot and do not provide medical advice of any kind. Consult a doctor. — The Potato Hose 06:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See Telmisartan, under Contraindications and Side effects.--Shantavira|feed me 09:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Alabama Preacher and Wife Die on Wedding Day
I am trying to find the names of a preacher and his wife who died on their wedding day. He was on his way to preach his first sermon at a newly assigned church the following morning when the car was hit by a train. Church denomination unknown but it was probably Baptist. It probably happened in the late 1930s or early 1940s, as they were driving a 1937 Plymouth. They are supposed to be buried in Morgan County, Alabama in a cemetery outside of Cullman. Their graves are surrounded by an old little white fence.Bluewoodbeauty (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Best bet would be to contact the Morgan County Historical Society.


 * Morgan County Historical Society, 624 Bank Street, Decatur, AL 35601.


 * If they can't help you, they can point you to someone who can.


 * You might also try sending letters to all of the churches in Morgan County. Pastors or parish secretaries may be familiar with the story. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You may be talking about the tragic story of Rev. Otto Link and Minnie Hartung. See this page (under the heading Cullman Public Cemetary): . Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, there's also an Otto Hartung in the same cemetery. This is Cullman County, though, not Morgan. And a little early for a 1937 Plymouth. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On Google New Archive I found numerous cases of preachers and heir wives being killed when a train hit their car, or even when hey committed suicide by stepping in front of a train, but none with the special facts of newlyweds on way to give first sermon, or Plymouth car. But the geographical coverage of historical newspapers searchable online is very poor for some states, so the stories covering the case in question might be available only locally. Edison (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of Morgan County cemeteries. Many pictures, but not all graves are photographed. Worth a look, perhaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hostile work place
Tevildo (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Two Film Questions.
I am asking these questions here, because I know they are not fiction, but films based on true fact.


 * There was a Chinese girl captured by the Germans in WW2 and was tattooed on her back by an SS Commander who had a penchant for art. She lived in Beijing after the war and passed away in 1993. I am trying to find her name, and the (rather amateurish) Chinese film about her life.

KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There was an artist who tattooed a painting on a homeless man's back, and after the man died many years later, his skin was removed and put on display. Does anyone know the name of the artist, and the film in which it was portrayed? I think it was in France.


 * The first looks like Red Cherry, which does indeed say it is based on the real story of 13-year-old Chuchu. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether it's a film, but the second sounds like the Roald Dahl short story Skin. - Ka renjc 22:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are both correct. Thanks. I thought the second one was a true story, however (and I am sure it was a film, because I don't read Roald Dahl (not since leaving school, anyway)). Thanks a lot. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, Dahl did use the real artist Chaim Soutine to create the tattoo in his story, which might lead people to assume it was based on a true incident from Soutine's rather colourful life. The story was filmed for one episode of the Tales of the Unexpected TV show, each of which lasted 25 minutes; maybe that's the version you remember seeing? -  Ka renjc 17:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, that might be it, because when I was a kid I was always left at home on my own on a Saturday night (parents went out, brothers told to babysit for me, but went out anyway), and I used to watch that series (scared the hell out of me (as well as Hammer House Of Horror)). Cheers! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Human skin (including tattoed skin) was used quite frequently for book-binding up to the late 1700's (especially for medical books!) - and tattoed skin was often used following the execution of the former owner and was sometimes used to bind a biography of the person. Criminals who had done something particularly nasty would sometimes be sentenced to having their skin removed and used for such purposes after their execution.  Some medical books did incorporate tattoos into the binding - but it's unclear whether these were tattoos that the "contributor" already had - or whether the tattoo was created after death.  But I don't see any instances of having someone tattooed before death specifically so that the skin could be used for some decorative purpose afterwards.   (See, for example this report and this one).  SteveBaker (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WHAAOE: Anthropodermic bibliopegy - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Laptop Lid
https://androidpowerhub.com/which-are-the-best-voicemail-apps/ [Moved to Computing desk] Tevildo (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)