(08-14-2012, 08:05 AM)Surf314 link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=at0m link=topic=2632.msg251949#msg251949 date=1344918422]
[quote author=Surf314 link=topic=2632.msg251945#msg251945 date=1344913234]
[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=2632.msg251911#msg251911 date=1344893507]
[quote author=HeK link=topic=2632.msg251899#msg251899 date=1344885677]
[quote author=at0m link=topic=2632.msg251897#msg251897 date=1344885407]
And a decent singer is like $100, will last forever.
Not anymore. Any plastic machine you buy will break within a year of general use.
What you want is a steel machine, be it Singer, Brother, etc, from a yard sale.
Find something with a universal motor mount and belt drive, it will make it as flexible as possible.
[/quote]Fun Fact: Singer Sewing Machine was one of the companies contracted to build 1911A1 pistols during WWII. They were only given a contract for 500 guns as an experiment to see how quickly a company could completely retool from peacetime production to wartime production without having any experience in wartime equipment manufacturing. A Singer branded 1911 can fetch up to $80,000 at auction.
[/quote]I feel like Singer was the subject of some big antitrust action against it. I am forever ruined.
[/quote]I see no mention of antitrust anything on their wikipedia article, so I'm a little confused. Also, WWII made a LOT of US (and UK, and German) companies retooled for wartime manufacturing, it wasn't a rarity.
[/quote]
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/.../case.html
I think I cited this in my paper or something.
tl;dr - Singer conspired with the Swiss and Italians to use a patent to screw the Japanese who were undercutting all three.
[/quote]Also, that court decision says it was dismissed on appeal, though :| and from reading it, it looks like the Italian company would've been justified to bring suit against the Japanese company directly, in the US (since it was a US patent), so I don't really see where there was a problem...
[edit] ah, reading further, it was dismissed on appeal to district court, then the dismissal was reversed by the supreme court. interesting.[/edit]