BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="perterra" data-source="post: 3169831" data-attributes="member: 103709">So along that train of thought why would someone need more than one employee to be a manufacturer? Seems like all you would need is a computer program, maybe a lathe and mill and someone to write a check to a company to actually build it.I dont buy it, the way I look at it, Leupold manufactures optics, just not binoculars. To say they are a manufacurer is playing loose with the words, same for Vortex, Eagle or even the Atlas brand. If the extent of your liability in manufacturing is limited to copyrights and patents, I wouldnt say you are a manufacturer.  Dont get me wrong, I dont have a problem with companies distributing others glass or sub contracting out their work, but when they sub 100% they should fess up and not claim they are a manufacturer. I'm not saying they shouldnt say it unless they own 100%, I'm just saying they should have a stake in the game, and using a different company every year to produce your glass does not make you a maker. I would tend to be a little looser on the term if so many werent exactly like each other. It's like there is a company who makes them and has a punch list, you put the X in what you want on yours and send us your logo and you are now a maker.</blockquote>