Rumor Mill Fodder

Status
Not open for further replies.
CHR

CHR

Design matters
Nov 28, 2002
8,951
8,442
113
Anaheim
www.avantegardens.com
State / Prov
CA
Anybody know anything about a post from last Friday on Yahoo's FTD message board:
Anti-Trust Lawsuite (sic) FTD
Anyone know anything about this? Filed in Louisiana?
Click to expand...
The username was created that day and only made a single post AFAICT.
Louisiana is home to at least one company that has been known to employ an attorney or two.
 
I'm definitely not a stock broker ... but isn't this related to stock symbol FTD - Fort Dearborn Income Secs?

I could be WAY off ...

Ryan
 
Wonder what the suit is for this time around....

Dang drive-by's ;)

Time will tell....
 
As I understand the suit

Yes, to qwell the assuming...it was Gary Reed and FAS that filed an antitrust suit against FTD. It involves the Mercury Network, and FAS's access to the same and future costs.

Far as I know FAS has not paid a cent for access for the last couple decades.

Interesting tid-bits, reading the suit, and the one filed against Teleflora a while back, it looks like the Replace All command was done, simply removing Teleflora and inserting Florists Transworld Delivery in it's place making the suits them same. (as I understand it, you can NOT file the same Anti-Trust suit against two different companies) Both suits involve access to the other companies networks.

Also, the law that was sited to file the suit, is applicable in 49 states, but not In LA, where the suit was filed in Federal Court. (maybe it'll go to the Supreme Court)(this is as I understand it)
 
My FTD rep was in yesterday ( he is a good guy, always available to me and I appreciate it)
He says FTD decided that if you want access to the mercury than you must pay for it.. that means those using 3rd party software that for years used 'black boxes' or merc 2000 or merc direct must now pay a 'realistic' fee each month.. They were paying lots less for connection than I am.. since it was just a connections box?? anyway for one particular member I know it is going from maybe $59. month to $500. month.. seems fair to me since I am using FTd software and my connection fees have always been higher than his..
Now that FTd is not the 'only' method of computer access to a network it seems fair that it no longer must allow free or discounted access as ruled by that old court order..(stating it was a monopoly)

It would be nice if these new fees were used to lower my fees.. but I don't think I will bet on that
 
IIRC when we had Daisy and were FTD members, we paid FTD for the Mim/Modem, monthly access and usage as well as TF for support for the interface. It's been a while so pardon me if my memory is murky.

Looks like FTD is willing to gamble that florists will leave indy POSs to remain on their network. Otherwise, they are cutting off a heck of a lot of orders and endpoints.

Can't think of too many florists that would find $500/mo basic network access worth it and most of those stores already have sweetheart deals with FTD on one level or another.

Carol, don't hold your breath for that fee reduction off-set. :rolleyes:

Mark, is a copy of the suit available online?
 
Cathy,

My guess - and this is ONLY a guess - is that FTD is tired of dealing with MIM/Black Box/2000 units that can't be repaired. These indy vendors have had the option for years to move to the MNAPI system (interface with Merc Direct), but that would require work on their part.

If vendor "x" wants to avoid the high fees all they have to do is change their POS product to use the modern FTD interace instead of the one from the 1980's.

Ryan
 
Infinite said:
My guess - and this is ONLY a guess - is that FTD is tired of dealing with MIM/Black Box/2000 units that can't be repaired.

Ryan
Click to expand...
Good guess...truth is there are only about 5 (five) of the old units left to be used...and like Ryan elluded to, once they break they can not be repaired ...

This outdated technology is responsible for a huge amount of their support costs, and eliminating it will help to keep support fee's down. Also connected is getting the network to a single platform (ie: internet) to also eliminate support issues.
 
Guys, if the issue comes down to lack of tech progress on the part of the independent companies, I can't see how they have a basis for a suit - especially if all the FTD system users have to migrate to the web-based version.

It would be like complaining about software that worked on Windows 95 and doesn't run in XP.
 
Mim

We have FAS, and we no longer use the black box, but a Mercury interface in the FAS system. I don't believe that the black box is the issue. As far as fees paid to FTD, we pay plenty so there is no concept of "the free ride".

My guess is that FTD is pushing hard to get florists on the Merc system and away from the independents, and this is Gary Reed pushing back.
 
Ted, I think you misunderstood. The old Mercury platform is different from the Mercury Direct platform. They run on different servers, different architecture, but have to interface to support "legacy users."

Once there are no longer users on the old dial-up platform, FTD will only have to run one server, one platform, for the mercury network. The old system - because it uses an old programming language & old standards - is very limited in its ability for future development, hence the push to the new system.

There is a cost involved to the software developers of time, possibly equipment, and certainly support to make this change. Imagine all the FAS, Visual Ticket, MAS, FlowerSoft, etc users on old-style merc hook-ups who will need new software - and possibly new hardware - to keep up. Each user will need to be supported during the transition.

Because many indy vendors have avoided the move to Merc Direct they have saved money and added to FTD's operation costs.

Note: FlowerSoft & MAS are already using Merc Direct. I don't know about the other programs, but it is my assumption, based on the lawsuit, that FAS is not.

Ryan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back