Slashdot Mirror
Judge OKs Class-Action Suit Against Microsoft
faqBastard writes: "This just in from CNBC. A California judge has OK'ed a class action lawsuit against MS. Has it's monopolistic practices harmed Calif consumers?" There really isn't much more to read here, but I'm sure we'll know more soon.
1. How can I join
2. what needs to be shown to join the class action, use of MS products, or do you need to show that you have been harmed by ms products?
3.how will this affect alternative OS's?
An excerpt:
Read it again, this is a violation of a State law being tested.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
How can we ever measure the damage that M$ has done? How can we ever say how farther computing would be if M$ did not stifle competition? While making Billy pay us money might help, there is no way to recover the time lost due to M$.
Why can't we just let the doj handle this?
The DOJ is going after them for violation of antitrust laws, the class action lawsuit is about holding them accountable for the negative impact that their products have had on consumers.
Two cases with related issues behind them, but still separate and distinct.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Some how I have a problem seeing California being harmed by much of anything, aside from falling in the ocean...
Consider how much the State Govt, alone, would recoup in something like this. Large businesses, schools, etc. The state isn't just some nebulous entity tied to a chunk of land.
BTW, we're waiting for that big one, when all the land to the east of the fault slides off into the Atlantic.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Federal anti-trust law states that victims of monopolistic practices can sue for three times what they've lost. Not sure if that holds true in state courts, but if it does they could be out some serious money; even if it's just that one state, California makes up a sizeable chunk of the US' population.
--
The class action suit that has been accepted in California claims that Microsoft used its monopolistic position to harm customers by charging high prices.
Since the price of Microsoft software has gone down constantly during the last 15 years and competitors usually charge higher prices they don't have a chance of winning. If it has been accepted it's just because of the particularities of Californian Law.
Hell, even in the main case of the DOJ vs. Microsoft the prosecution admitted that Microsoft charges fair prices.
i'm sure glad *I'M* not sucessful! Apperently, it's a bad thing to aim for, because anybody who is seems to be torn apart on /.
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
A consistent subject for this suit would be the OEM thing. I bought a PC => Windows came with it => I don't want Windows => They won't let me return it => MS screwed me on ~$100.
Weren't there Windows Refund Day events in California? These can be brought to the Judge's attention. I mean, tied sales are illegal, aren't they?
Even Bill will feel the pinch of lawsuits like this in every state.
True, _if_ lawsuits like this are allowed in every state. From the CNET article on the same story
Courts in Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas have dismissed similar class-action lawsuits on grounds that laws in those states don't allow them.
This is supposed to be great art. So why does it look like a bunch of decapitated naked people? -- Calvin
Great. In six paragraphs they managed to not name the plaintiff.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
From what I've read, the million dollar settlement was a direct response of McD not playing nice. Here's the real story... that particular McD was warned many times about coffee *way* to hot (we're talking above the boiling point here) and refused to do anything about it, saying that people like coffee hot. People may like coffee hot, but I'm sure people don't like it boiling hot! So the lady spills her coffee, finds out about the history of complaints about way too hot coffee, and decides to talk to a lawyer. Initially, they wanted McD to pay *the cost of the medical bills only* and McD flat-out refused, so they took them to court. And they won $1M and the rest was history.
If a company treated me like an ass when I asked nice, you better believe I would do the same thing.
Too true, too true. If there was ever an AC post to moderate up, this is it.
BilldaCat
I don't quite understand what this is about from reading the article. Although I despise Microsoft and use Linux almost exclusively at home, I don't think Windows or Microsoft products are that expensive. Commercial UNIXes are (or used to be) much higher. Windows 98 retails for $99. Just a few years ago, Solaris x86 was like $1200, SCO was like $800. Word 2000 is $300. Adobe Acrobat is $249, FrameMaker is $799.
Please don't flame me... I'm comparing types of applications, not quality. I don't care what you like better... the things I listed are comparable in base feature sets;
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Anyone have any real details
Here are some details from the WSJ
A judge allowed the first class-action suit to proceed against Microsoft Corp. on allegations that the software giant's monopoly harmed California consumers. Dozens of similar suits linger nationwide. In a 21-page opinion released late Tuesday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Stuart R. Pollak said an untold number of California consumers could be represented in one trial to determine whether they were forced to pay unreasonably high costs for Microsoft products. He said denying the suit "could result in repetitious litigation." "This case involves a very large number of claimants with relatively small amounts at stake," Judge Pollak said. "Most consumers have little incentive to litigate independently since the costs of litigation undoubtedly would overwhelm their potential recovery." Microsoft spokesman James W. Cullinan said the Redmond, Wash., company is reviewing the ruling. "This is just one step in a long process in this case," Mr. Cullinan said. He declined further comment. Attorneys in the case are scheduled to meet with Mr. Pollak on Oct. 4 to prepare for a trial. No trial date has been set yet. The products at issue are Microsoft's Windows operating system, its MS-DOS operating system, Word programs and Excel software purchased on or after May 18, 1994. Microsoft urged Judge Pollak on Aug. 4 not to allow the case to proceed because it would be nearly impossible to determine damages. Microsoft attorney Charles B. Casper argued that the company markets its products to thousands of companies who resell them at different prices, adding that the judge would have to weigh each consumer's claim on a case-by-case basis. Lawyers seeking class-action status said that Microsoft was trying to shield itself behind its size. "Just make your business large enough that you can overcharge and get away with it," San Francisco attorney Daniel J. Furniss argued. Mr. Pollak's decision came three weeks after Microsoft asked a federal judge in Baltimore to dismiss or at least consolidate 62 pending federal and state class-action suits. That action is pending and, so far, none have been able to proceed. Courts in Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas have dismissed similar class-action lawsuits on grounds that laws in those states don't allow them. The majority of the cases nationwide were filed after U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in Washington, D.C., ruled that the company violated federal antitrust laws. Microsoft is appealing Mr. Jackson's ruling and his order to split the software giant into two companies. Three weeks ago, Mr. Pollak suggested that it would be a Herculean task for attorneys to demonstrate how consumers were wronged. "If they can't do it, they'll lose the case," Mr. Pollak said. Microsoft has argued that, even if it was a monopoly, consumers in many instances benefited and were not harmed. For instance, Microsoft says Netscape, now a division of America Online Inc., dropped its roughly $50 charge for a Web browser after Microsoft began giving its browser away for free.
Live to be Moderated
With all of these suits going forward, just the process of notifying the class members is going to cost a fortune. I've bought at least 40-50 MSFT products/upgrades over the years. If they can't figure out that I'm one person, my mailbox is going to be flooded.
On another front, I wonder if this will turn out to be another one of those "my lawyers sued Microsoft and all I got was this lousy $10 voucher" deals. One guess.
Here's the article,
Pretty uninformative, I have to say. How does this show that Microsoft has harme-- oh.---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I worked for a (different) McDonalds at that time. We turned the tempature down a little bit and got so many complaints that we ended up turnging it back up (Note, not up to boiling, but hotter then out compititors). People like coffee hot. Those that don't ask us to put ice in the cup, which we gladdly did free of charge, and always had.
You can read the court decision, what other restaruants were doing all you want. I personally heard several of the complaints about the coffee after that. We didn't change the tempature immeadially after the lawsuit, and didn't get complaints until after the change, which stoped when we brought the tempature back to where it was. Customers could tell the difference, and didn't like it.
On the contrary, these complaints were simmering before the Federal Antitrust trial got rolling. And when it's your choice being limited and your wallet being hit, I'm sure you'll feel the same.
The California case centers around monopolistic practices elimitating choice of other software, which may have brought prices down. The People of the State of California must demonstrate that costs were higher than would normally be if there were competition. This isn't an easy thing to prove, and still hinges to some degree upon the success of the antitrust trial.
If Microsoft Word were being given away free and drove Word Perfect and Displaywriter from store shelves, then they jacked up the prices, it would be open and shut. Most likely people wanted to settle on some standard for documents, spreadsheets, O/S behavior to simplify training, communication and exchange with other parties. The most damning thing really is lack of some storage standard which all vendors could agree on and then compete to make the best wordprocessor. Too many picked Word and the rest have pretty much faded. Without serious competition Microsoft sets prices where they want.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I can see the settlement figured out now...
Windows 98 crashes an average of twice a workday. (or ten times a work week)
Re-booting takes an average of one minute and thirty seconds.
Five million (wild estimate) CA consumers use 98 at work.
The average salary of such a worker breaks down to $12/hr.
There are 52 weeks in a year.
So...
10 * 52 = 520
520 * 1.5 = 780
780 * 5000000 = 3900000000
3900000000 / 60 = 65000000
65000000 * 10 = 650000000
That ends up being about $65,000,000 in lost productivity per year for one simgle product. Of course, this isn't counting the travesty of Marco virii. This is what monopoly does...
Of course, saying this on Slashdot is like preaching to the snake-handeling, tounge-speaking, chior.
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
I once got a check for 14 CENTS (the other 32 cents went for the stamp - Damn!) from a Blue Cross class action suit in Maryland. The suit was for BC overcharging on premiums. That year my premiums went up over $300. Oh, and I never signed up for the suit. Who made money on that one? The lawyers.
I wonder. Can I sue the goverment for overpayment of taxes due to the surplus. I would love to have a class action against my garbage collectors who find it difficult to get the trash into the truck rather than on the ground - if they pick it up at all. Can I sue for the pshychological abuse administered by the D.C. Motor Vehicles Administration (similar to experiencing the Spanish Inquisition).
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
I really sincerely doubt it. I don't think you'll find anyone who would argue that cigarette smoking and carbon monoxide are both deadly toxins, and so I think it's totally appropriate that Cali passed those laws. I don't think a "feel good" label is appropriate here, their state government is just concerned with the well being of their citizens, as well they should be. Hey, maybe *that's* why their economy is so good. (isn't it in the top ten worldwide?)
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Well, if you don't want governmental regulation overseeing markets and businesses in MINUTE DETAIL, then you are voting for the old order of private parties keeping each other in line by suing in court. That means lawsuits galore, like in the good old days before governments took a hand in defending the common interest (beyond securing borders, cutting the hands off of thieves, branding adulterers and that sort of thing).
In most parts of this planet, people are expected to think or ponder before they act. This may or may not be true for CA.
Not that I'm one of Bill's Buddies nor do I get regularly invited at Windows Parties, but this is not about M$, it's about common sense. Or lack thereof.
I am under serious distress when I get my phone bill. Mom, can I sue the phone company, please?
Use The Source, Luke!
Imagine what whould happen if RICO could be applied to MS! Among other things RICO allows for the confiscation of land, buildings, money, etc. from the perpetrator.
Smoking in bars: When they banned it I spent hundreds more per month in bars. I hated smoke filled bars when I lived in Michigan.
/. I don't feel that M$ makes the worst products, but I think they need more competition to focus them on actually making better products. Competition stimulates the imagination.
Most restrictive polution laws: And yet you can drive around a smoking pre-73 car and the damn things don't rust out.
Put 35 million people in one legal entity and see what happens.
If people don't stand up to M$ and other corporations then they will get screwed. If anything it should punish a monopolist and encourage the kind of open-source cooperation often discussed on
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Hey, maybe *that's* why their economy is so good. (isn't it in the top ten worldwide?)
6th largest economy in the world. "Feel Good" is about as out of date as the 70's. This is one of the most cutthroat business centers of the world.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Yes, Microsoft has done some things that shouldn't have been done, and yes, they should be held responsible for them. But really! Who is going to benefit from one or more class action lawsuits against the PC software giant? Hint: It won't be the consumers. You can bet that the lawyers will pocket billions before you or I ever see a dollar.
Bill Gates may be despicable in some eyes, but he is a saint compaired to a lot of the folks working in the legal system.
Gonzo
it's but about law firms making money. These large-scale class-action suits net the plaintiffs little money on an individual basis, but the 30% the law firm gets is in the millions. There are firms whose sole practice is to file class-action lawsuits in the name of people who didn't even ask for it.
Basically you get a letter in the mail from the lawyers stating that you are now a plaintiff (one of thousands) in a class-action lawsuit, and if you don't want to participate you have to submit a written letter stating so. This is supposed to protect your right to sue the defendant on your own if you choose to do so, but also exempts you from any proceeds from a successful verdict for the class-action. The problem I have is that you have to write a letter to bow out from a lawsuit you didn't even ask for. The lawyers also have the right to settle out of court with no approval from the plaintiffs, which they usually do for a fraction of the lawsuit amount so that they can make an easy buck.
My wife and I went through this with Sears and Roebuck a couple of years ago. A law firm was suing them for a tens of thousands of plaintiffs in regards to there accounting practices for interest on their credit cards. I took the letter and threw it in the trash. Six months later a letter arrived stating that the suit was settled out of court and we were entitled to $15.00 before lawyer fees, processing etc. The check was for $3.50. I'm sure the law firm took home more than that.
California allows you to sue for a lot of things other places won't let you sue for.
They also have different burden of proofs then other states and provinces.
Also, the laws regarding lawsuits won't magically change in Texas becausee somebody in California won a frivolous suit that would not be allowed in Texas.
Having studied civil law in Ontario (in high school no less, ph33r my l33t l4w sk1llZ!), I don't think we could pull off the same sort of lawsuit here.
Most of the time, I'd make a comment about Ontario being sane about frivolous civil suits, but having paid for at least two copies of Windows I never wanted, I'm going to keep my opinion in reserve this time.
Oh, IANAL, and IHCL (I Hate Civil Law).
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
This is almost as bad as the old lady who spilled hot coffee on her lap or the asshole woman suing nike for shoelaces coming untied. Too bad the judge didn't call the lady a dumbass for putting hot coffee in her lap and throw the case out of court. That single case opened the door for all these stupid lawsuits. I should sue ford because for 100 years they never put a warning label on the gas pedal.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
On a more serious note. I think it has to an extent. The price for windows has not gone down instead it has gone up, although they say that the ME edition will be $59 or so. The problem is that Windows is making the companies like Dell and Gateway, and all the thousand other little companies that install windows pay lots for the software. This causes the price in computers to go up. A 500 dollar computer could sell for probably 100 less if it was not for the cost of windows. Sure you can say that you could install Linux, but Linux has some hardware issues that makes this not as easy as you think.
I cannot count the hours of lost work productivity that resulted from rebooting my machine. In 1997 I was down for a WEEK cause my NT workstation (at work) gave me the BSOD. This was when it first was discovered and noone knew what to do, and M$ did not have a cure.
Although currently M$ is probably the best software on the market, as far as applications, ease of use, etc. I think that mere fact that they released Windows 95 which noone can deny was buggier than hell, they should be held accountable for. I also think that NT 4 is buggier than hell and if it were not for sp 5 or 6 this machine I am useing would be just as worthless. Granted M$ has come a long way and there Win 2000 product is probably a good product, but I no longer trust them. Maybe there penality should be to give free upgrades to 2000 to ANYONE that is still using Window 95, and to sell the upgrades for 98 and NT 4.0 for less than $50. This would allow them to stay together, still make money (not that Billy boy needs it) and make most consumers happier, IMHO! ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
You could do it, if you can foot the bill and deal with the support calls from people who don't know what an OS is...
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
Nope, never a smoker, hated coming home with all that stink on my clothes. Hard to enjoy a good Paulaner Heffeweizen or Pilsner Urquell in a stench of tobacco fumes. I often eat dinner along with a couple brews at a local pub (which offers 99 different kinds of beer, about 40 on tap, people who have been to Santa Cruz will know of this wonderful place)
The original point was that these laws aren't necessarily stupid things to make a tiny population of hippies joyful. As much as law can restrict the power of government it can also make us a more civil society (which is sorely needed in densely populated areas like California has). The Class Action, which isn't even a filing, yet, was merely a judge giving permissiont to pursue this avenue of punishing a business, again, to make this a more civil place to live (cheaper software!)
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well, yeah, that's the general idea. Punish them by making them give back a certain amount of revenue. It would also set precident. That done they'd have to review their pricing practices more carefully, lest they get hauled into another Class suit.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The only fault I can see for the tobacco industry was their intentional hacking of cigarettes to make them more addictive. Otherwise, if you choose to use a product that is known to be hazardous to your health and addictive, you get what you deserve. You shouldn't be whining later about it so you can get a few million dollars.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Check out MoralDefense.com for some excellent Objectivist rhetoric.
/. community.
I run Linux at home. And my personal boycott against MSFT products has been active since Windows 95. There's no reason to reiterate how much MSFT sucks to the
But, I also feel that a boycott should be the extent of my ability to limit Microsoft's power. Only the individual can lash out against a corporation: by not buying a product. The government has no place in this matter.
If you don't like Windows, be a geek, go to Fry's, and build your own friggin' computer so that Bill never gets his greasy hands on your prized possession. What's the issue?
Don't invite the government to save "the public" on this one. If you bought a MSFT product, you only hurt yourself. I hardly think that "the public" needs protection from MSFT.
Even worse with the case of MSFT is that they've actually provided a decent product to fill a market niche (albeit an incredibly large niche). MSFT has been offering a superior consumer product for years at an excellent price. Windows has brought law and order to the consumer computer market and helped to make computers useful for grandma smith and uncle bob. Windows is an excellent product in that regard.
Even worse, it's obvious that MSFT has had competition through the entire battle. As I recall, AAPL's headquarters are smack-dab in the middle of Silicon Valley; and SUNW's headquarters aren't far down the road. And SGI's and even the now defunct SCO (Tarantella?). There were plenty of choices out there if you really wanted an alternate. But, again: MSFT was providing a product that better suited people's needs at a much better price. Even today one can argue that Windows ME/2000 provides most people with more functionality than they'll ever need.
If you want to destroy Microsoft, don't waste your time with the government. Hack Eazel, GNOME, KDE; or some other Linux component that threatens the power or Redmond.
Invidia fortunum ovit.
Remind me who you are, again?
I completely agree, which is why the McDonald's coffee judgement was not unreasonable.
Well, had you followed the case instead of simply scanning the headlines, the coffee in question was hot enough to cause third degree burns. Sure, serving warm coffee is a nice thing to do, but when the coffee is 'warm' enough to make my flesh blister, its perhaps not so nice.
So in a case where a parent uses a teddy bear to suffocate a newborn, the parent should get off scott free because ITS A TEDDY BEAR FOR GOD'S SAKE!! ....
In this case, a restaurant was punished because, despite repeated warnings and complaints, they exhibited criminal negligence that threatened the general public with bodily harm. And if McDonald's had not been sued, that particular restaurant would probably still be serving coffee hot enough to kill a small child with.
So, in this particular case, it appears that justice was served and served well.
-
"GIVEN CALIFORNIA law, this ruling was not unexpected," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan told Reuters.
He covers up so much by just saying "this ruling".Let's expand it for him, from the headline of the story:
-
"GIVEN CALIFORNIA law, charges that [we] harmed consumers through [our] monopolistic practices was not unexpected," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan told Reuters.
When a company's business model means that this kind of thing is expected, there is something very wrong with the way that company opperates.My $0.02
G
No; thanks to this woman, McDonalds now serves their coffee at a reasonable temperature. The coffee will still burn you if you accidentally spill it on yourself, but it will take about twenty seconds for it to do the damage it did to Liebeck in three seconds. The coffee is also no longer served at a temperature that will scald your mouth if you drink it immediately.
Firecrackers are not intended to be held in the hand when ignited. Coffee is intended to be ingested, and one ought to be able to reasonably assume that the coffee will not burn you severely enough to require skin grafts.
--Phil (Read my other post for some informative URLs.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
Merit frequently has nothing to do with these cases. The target will settle just to avoid the possibility of a runaway jury socking it with an enormous award, or to avoid a protracted, debilitating legal battle. Microsoft has the resources to fight, so maybe they won't cave in, but many do.
I thought one of the points of the whole anti-trust thing was that Microsoft was giving away software like IE (as opposed to selling it)...and now people are complaining that their prices are too high? Make up your minds, people.
Martee
~~~~~~~~~~
Martee
Given the appalling ignorance regarding computers the populace, I don't see how any of them are harmed.
Most of them probably don't know HOW they were harmed, but that doesn't mean that they weren't.
100 years ago people didn't "KNOW" that cigarettes were harming them, but they were.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Interesting. Tell me about your mother.
Aaah... Explains a lot.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice on this or any other matter, see a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.
First of all, class actuion suits usually do work out the way you describe. The only clear example I can come up with is the Iomega suit, in which the class members actually got what they were supposed to get in the first place (their rebate and accessories) plus an extra disk.
The usual outcome is that the attorneys get well paid, and the calss gets almost nothing. On the other hand, part of this is because the underlying claims tend to be close to worthless--but the defendants remain better off offering a coupon or a few bucks than paying for the litigation. This, however, *is* what drives the typical low payments from the class-action mills--it's not compensation, which really wasn't due, but rather go-away money.
The inability to collect if you opt out makes perfect sense--the law generally only lets you have one bite at the apple.
However, it is not quite true that the lawyers can settle without the consent of plaintiffs. Class members *are* entitled to object to the settlement, and often d. This is becoming more common due to partial reforms. It used to be that the first to file got to keep the suit. Today, larger class members are given substantial input in the choice of attorneys.
I seriously doubt that this will be a typical class action. The liability isn't *as* clear as Iomega's (there was no legitimate defense in that case; the behavior was either inept or deliberate fraud), because the damages *are* real and, within reason, quantifiable. However, in the case of windows, they're no more than $50 (judging by the figures in the Findings of Fact).
One last thing: lawyers in class actions do not get 30%. Rather, they petition the court to approve fees based on teh amount of work done. Frequently this is worked out ahead of tiime with the defendant in a settlments, but judges are getting better (but still have a long ways to go) at rejecting these (e.g., the tobacco settlements. Those fees were so clearly unreasonable that they should have been disbarred for accepting them).
hawk, esq.
Lets think about this, the coffee being served was hot enought to cause third degree burns with absolutely no warning. Further, people were complaining that the coffee was too hot. In a case like that, it is only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured. And if you think my point about a small child dying is so incredible, think about it for a second. I can't imagine a 12 oz cup of coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns to an adult would have a very good effect if accidentally dropped on an infant. That scenario is entirely possible and given enough time and given the restaruants prediliction for ignoring complaints, the scenario even becomes probable if the practice is not stopped by means of a lawsuit.
The teddy bear analogy was not pointless, nor was it comparing apples to oranges. The fact is that one of your points (not your only point) was that the lawsuit was ridiculous simply because it dealt with coffee. By taking your words and putting them in a different scenario, it shows the silliness of that line of reasoning.
Hmm. I've been accused of that before. But honestly, ad hominem attacks do not increase the esteem with which I hold your debating skills. What possible bearing could an alleged obsession with death of mine have on the discussion?
regards,
-l
Having said all this I would much prefer that the principles of the corporation get tried in both civil and criminal courts and if found guilty actually go to jail. A little personal responsibility would go a long way towards making more ethical corporations.
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
War is necrophilia.
Hurrah! I've won the argument. Hmm. Perhaps not. I think I detect sarcasm.
Well, we're not speaking of coffee that is merely warmer than 98.6 Farenheight. We're speaking of coffee that is hot enough to cause third degree burns. For comparrison, I keep my hot water heater at home around 120 Farenheight and the water is not hot enough to cause second degree burns. It might be hot enough to cause first degree burns if I soaked in it long enough.
Let's look at the hard facts of the case ( some of which were taken from here and some of which were taken from here ).
Personally I don't think I should have to risk third degree burns to myself or the people around me when I go get a cup of joe. It would be different if (a) this were an isolated incident or (b) this were the first incident. As it stands, I don't think causing over 700 documented injuries (some of which were to children) due to burns is indicative of an eye to public safety. I think ignoring that number of injuries does border on being criminally negligent.
Considering that you have yet to offer an argument that is anything other than an appeal to emotion or an ad hominem attack, I'm not altogether concerned whether you agree with me or not.
Coming from a person that has yet to offer anything even approaching a reasonable argument, I find the request that I grow up to be fairly amusing.
have a day.