But it is equally important to keep perspective and not let rumour and incorrect conclusions unduly damage the core business, after all I am sure every company has such a list of papers...
But Canon should not be charging for faulty or failing design or manufacturing issues.
I applaud Private's effort to keep this in perspective. Without knowing what the information is that CR has, it's hard to say "No." But honestly, only CR Guy knows what the information is and can decide if it is important enough to release.
Let's be realistic – if Canon has identified a tiny design flaw that impacts .0005% of one lens and then only when shooting a full moon on a cloudy night in April in odd numbered years and you post that online, then every internet forum will be lit up with people who are ABSOLUTELY SURE their lens has this problem and they'll be demanding that Canon immediately replace their five-year-old lens with a new model and provide free overnight shipping as well.
On the other hand, if there is a serious design flaw that impacts a sizable number of users and Canon is charging for repairs when they shouldn't, that's another case.
I'm just saying a certain amount of judgment should be exercised.
As indicated by the CR post, it seems as if the person who is sending Canon Rumors these documents is trying to show that this is a slightly bigger problem than your make-believe example above.
I personally have been treated terribly by Canon over a decentered 24-70 II despite being a CPS member. Their shoddy service forced me to sell the lens at a massive loss and purchase another copy, of which I went through four different ones before I found one that is adequate; and even now it's developed the clicking sound.
I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy after the way I was treated through emails and on the phone by them.