Olympus and former executives plead guilty - BBC News

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Sep 25, 2012.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19709609

    Olympus and former executives plead guilty

    Former Olympus chairman, Tsuyoshi Kikukawa, has pleaded guilty to
    charges of falsifying accounts, covering up losses of $1.7bn (£1.1bn),
    at the opening of his trial.

    Two other former executives, as well as the company itself, filed a
    guilty plea in Tokyo District Court.

    They face up to 10 years in prison.

    The three admitted to hiding losses dating back to the 1990s, which
    were brought to light by a former chief executive, Michael Woodford.

    'Entire responsibility'

    Mr Kikukawa said he regretted not revealing the accounting
    irregularities earlier.

    "There is no mistake. The entire responsibility lies with me," Mr
    Kikukawa said in court on Tuesday.

    He also apologised for the trouble caused to investors, customers,
    employees and the general public.

    The scandal was revealed when Mr Woodford, the British chief
    executive, was dismissed from his post after he challenged Mr Kikukawa
    and the board over suspiciously large payments related to
    acquisitions.

    An investigation was launched that revealed a cover-up of losses.

    Mr Kikukawa, former executive vice president Hisashi Mori and former
    auditing officer Hideo Yamada were arrested in February and later
    indicted on suspected violation of the Financial Instruments and
    Exchange Act.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19709609
     
    Bruce, Sep 25, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    So, what happens to Olympus now?

    I do not regret buying an OM-D. All the reviews seem to agree that
    it is the best of the m4/3 cameras, but of course some would say,
    "So what?".

    Back when personal computers were just getting started, two opposite
    approaches dominated the market: You could buy a MacIntosh, and buy
    *all* of your subsequent hardware from Apple, or you could buy an
    IBM PC, and a variety of manufacturers made all sorts of diverse
    hardware goodies that would work with it because IBM had published
    all of the specifications in order to encourage exactly that. I
    kind of felt bad for IBM when this open philosophy caused them to
    lose out to the clone makers, but I felt that was the correct approach,
    and did not want to be beholden to any one manufacturer. Now I feel
    history repeating itself. I own lenses from three different
    manufacturers, and the only one that needs an adapter was intended
    to need one--it has an Adaptall mount. Would I have had as much
    choice if I had gone with another compact system?

    --
    Please reply to: | "If more of us valued food and cheer and song
    pciszek at panix dot com | above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
    Autoreply is disabled | --Thorin Oakenshield
     
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 25, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    nospam Guest

    In article <k3sfq8$hn1$>, Paul Ciszek
    <> wrote:

    > So, what happens to Olympus now?


    good question.

    > I do not regret buying an OM-D. All the reviews seem to agree that
    > it is the best of the m4/3 cameras, but of course some would say,
    > "So what?".
    >
    > Back when personal computers were just getting started, two opposite
    > approaches dominated the market: You could buy a MacIntosh, and buy
    > *all* of your subsequent hardware from Apple,


    i don't know why this myth persists, but that was *never* true.

    only the mac had to come from apple (not counting the clones in the
    90s). there was *plenty* of third party hardware and software for macs,
    and still is. in fact, it's often the *same* hardware as for the pc.

    > or you could buy an
    > IBM PC, and a variety of manufacturers made all sorts of diverse
    > hardware goodies that would work with it because IBM had published
    > all of the specifications in order to encourage exactly that.


    so did apple. not only did apple publish the hardware specs but they
    published the software specs too. connector pinouts, hardware timing,
    sample code, etc. was all published in inside macintosh and other
    books.

    > I kind of felt bad for IBM when this open philosophy caused them to
    > lose out to the clone makers, but I felt that was the correct approach,
    > and did not want to be beholden to any one manufacturer. Now I feel
    > history repeating itself. I own lenses from three different
    > manufacturers, and the only one that needs an adapter was intended
    > to need one--it has an Adaptall mount. Would I have had as much
    > choice if I had gone with another compact system?


    what matters is whether the product does what you need it to do.
     
    nospam, Sep 25, 2012
    #3
  4. Bruce

    RichA Guest

    On Sep 25, 10:41 am, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
    > So, what happens to Olympus now?
    >
    > I do not regret buying an OM-D.  All the reviews seem to agree that
    > it is the best of the m4/3 cameras, but of course some would say,
    > "So what?".
    >
    > Back when personal computers were just getting started, two opposite
    > approaches dominated the market: You could buy a MacIntosh, and buy
    > *all* of your subsequent hardware from Apple, or you could buy an
    > IBM PC, and a variety of manufacturers made all sorts of diverse
    > hardware goodies that would work with it because IBM had published
    > all of the specifications in order to encourage exactly that.  I
    > kind of felt bad for IBM when this open philosophy caused them to
    > lose out to the clone makers, but I felt that was the correct approach,
    > and did not want to be beholden to any one manufacturer.  Now I feel
    > history repeating itself.  I own lenses from three different
    > manufacturers, and the only one that needs an adapter was intended
    > to need one--it has an Adaptall mount.  Would I have had as much
    > choice if I had gone with another compact system?
    >


    No, no other system can use as many lenses and has as many adapters
    available for other lenses as does the m4/3 system.
     
    RichA, Sep 26, 2012
    #4
  5. Paul Ciszek <> wrote:

    > Back when personal computers were just getting started, two opposite
    > approaches dominated the market: You could buy a MacIntosh, and buy
    > *all* of your subsequent hardware from Apple, or you could buy an
    > IBM PC, and a variety of manufacturers made all sorts of diverse
    > hardware goodies that would work with it because IBM had published
    > all of the specifications in order to encourage exactly that. I
    > kind of felt bad for IBM when this open philosophy caused them to
    > lose out to the clone makers, but I felt that was the correct approach,
    > and did not want to be beholden to any one manufacturer. Now I feel
    > history repeating itself. I own lenses from three different
    > manufacturers, and the only one that needs an adapter was intended
    > to need one--it has an Adaptall mount. Would I have had as much
    > choice if I had gone with another compact system?


    Is Oly the only m4/3rds maker?

    Oh, it's easy to buy Canon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Zeiss lenses
    for Canon, I assume it's similar with Nikon. (Except that
    Nikonistas can't mount EF lenses[1] and Canonistas can mount
    Nikon lenses with an adapter)

    -Wolfgang

    [1] There's the inifinity problem ... so you'd need another
    teleconverter between lens and camera.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 26, 2012
    #5
  6. In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2012.09.25 10:41 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >> So, what happens to Olympus now?
    >>
    >> I do not regret buying an OM-D. All the reviews seem to agree that
    >> it is the best of the m4/3 cameras, but of course some would say,
    >> "So what?".


    > Nothing much will change at Olympus due to those pleas.


    > The former executives will face prison time (or not). They may be
    > fined. Olympus may be fined. Goes on the books.


    > If it works for you that's really all that counts.


    > I'm also bound (to Sony's FF path) which is not un-precarious. If Sony
    > fold their SLR/SLT tent, I will go with strength (Canon or Nikon). If
    > they folded it tomorrow though it would take me another 2 - 3 years
    > before I even took a good look.


    > Oly and Sony have an agreement in the works.


    As do Hasselbald & Sony.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Sep 27, 2012
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:

    >Chris Malcolm <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <>
    >> wrote:
    >>> On 2012.09.25 10:41 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >>>> So, what happens to Olympus now?
    >>>>
    >>>> I do not regret buying an OM-D. All the reviews seem to agree that
    >>>> it is the best of the m4/3 cameras, but of course some would say,
    >>>> "So what?".

    >>
    >>> Nothing much will change at Olympus due to those pleas.

    >>
    >>> The former executives will face prison time (or not). They may be
    >>> fined. Olympus may be fined. Goes on the books.

    >>
    >>> If it works for you that's really all that counts.

    >>
    >>> I'm also bound (to Sony's FF path) which is not un-precarious. If
    >>> Sony fold their SLR/SLT tent, I will go with strength (Canon or
    >>> Nikon). If they folded it tomorrow though it would take me another 2
    >>> - 3 years before I even took a good look.

    >>
    >>> Oly and Sony have an agreement in the works.

    >>
    >> As do Hasselbald & Sony.
    >>

    >
    >And Nikon. And Pentax. Sony sensors seem to dominate serious cameras.



    I feel sorry for the new owners of "Hasselbald". They don't seem to
    have a clue where they are going. Why do they think people would
    spend several times the price of a Sony NEX-7 on a camera whose sensor
    and processor are identical to those in an NEX-7?

    Hasselblad has some interesting ideas for new products (including a
    digital X-Pan) but at face value the Lunar seems to be a mistake. It
    did occur to me that Sony's finished (but not yet released) full frame
    NEX-9 would form a better basis. Perhaps that is what Hasselblad
    intended, but could not announce because it would have taken some of
    the headlines away from the NEX-9 when it is finally announced?
     
    Bruce, Sep 28, 2012
    #7
  8. Rich <> wrote:

    > And Nikon. And Pentax. Sony sensors seem to dominate serious cameras.


    I prefer cameras that can make you smile. Dour cameras are no fun.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 30, 2012
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Arawak
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    647
    Robert de Brus
    Oct 18, 2003
  2. Old Gringo

    Tunnel man guilty of terror charges

    Old Gringo, Sep 23, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    463
    Mike Easter
    Sep 23, 2005
  3. Lucas Tam

    Is Michael guilty or innocent?

    Lucas Tam, Apr 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    435
    Annika1980
    Apr 14, 2004
  4. Frances Higgins

    Independent B2B Sales Executives

    Frances Higgins, May 30, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    545
    Frances Higgins
    May 30, 2004
  5. Tony
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    496
Loading...

Share This Page