Slashdot Mirror
IBM Sues Company Selling Fake, Flammable Batteries
Bergkamp10 writes "A Computerworld article is reporting that IBM is suing Shentech for selling laptop batteries that catch on fire and sport allegedly fake IBM logos. IBM apparently followed up on a claim by a customer that an 'IBM' laptop battery bought at Shentech caught on fire and damaged his laptop. The customer reported the problem to Lenovo (who license Big Blue's trademark) who subsequently ordered 12 batteries from Shentech and found them all to be fakes. IBM is asking for US$1 million in damages for each dodgy battery sold."
Ouch. What a large amount of money. I wonder why they're suing for so much? Probably trying to defend their name. Guess that's what you get for messing with Big Blue. . .
The store mentioned in TFA looks pretty shady to begin with, with products like "iPod Nano Alike" and such [Quote from site; "Why pay more for iPod Nano where you can get this better funtioned MP3 player for just 1/5 of the price?"].
Usually it's a question whether the consumers should wise up, or whether cheap knockoffs should be removed due to copyright infringement. But in this case where one company is blatantly putting another company's label on their inferior product, that's undoubtedly when the law needs to fix things.
It's good that Big blue is doing something to stop this, but part of me doesn't have much sympathy for someone who would order parts from a site like that.
They also sell used and refurbished items as new. I ordered an ipod USB cable from them because the price was much cheaper than the competition. It worked, but it had grime and hair all over it. I emailed them to complain, and they sent me a replacement without hesitation. Practically an admission of guilt...it seemed.
Thus, if McDonald's were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55-60 C (131-140 F). But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85-95 C (185-203 F).[10]
Emphasis changed to point out why this is not a contradiction.
And moreover, it seems to me that the coffee had the right temperature (more so, considering that it was served at a drive thru which means people will indeed drink the coffee while driving over long distances):
Long distances is a reason to put the coffee in an insulated cup, not a reason to serve at a temperature so hot that it would physically damage you to actually put it to your lips.
Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[14] The National Coffee Association instructs that coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91-96 C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit."
While I may be mistaken, I don't think "immediately" is meant to imply "straight from the brewer at 91-96 C" because that would cause 3rd degree burns to your esophagus. I would rather think it's meant to imply that if you aren't intending to drink any coffee at the time and are going to let it sit, that it should maintained at the high temperature to maintain the flavor, and still allowed to cool down before serving so it's possible to drink.
And I've seen people spill "hot" coffee on themselves before, and never have I seen them fall to the ground screaming where they had to be taken to the hospital to receive skin grafts, and I've never seen anyone treat their lidless cup of coffee as though that were a possibility.
I have always thought that such a suit is only possible in the happy suing USA.
Regardless of the merits of hot coffee, I just can't see this as an example of that, because "happy suing USA" to me has always meant "person sues for $CHA-CHING because of emotional distress or skinned knee", where this lady initially only tried to recover her medical expenses for an actual severe injury she received, and it was the jury who decided that McDonald's dismissive behavior warranted the large punitive damages.
There are many, many better examples as far as I'm concerned. Off the top of my head, a lady once sued her employer because she's racist and they made her work with black people and this caused her emotional distress.
The enemies of Democracy are
As others have pointed out the company is US based. Others also pointed out that the IBM legal team is going to find out who they are ordering from and pass that information on Lenovo. Lenovo being a premier Chinese company with extensive government contacts will likely take action within the political/judicial system in China. It should also be noted that they execute executives and company chairman for behavior that damages the reputation of China. For instance the chairman that put all that melamine in dog food that ended up killing all those pets was sentenced to death and has likely already been executed. So if you think this is no big deal, think again. The American company will be utterly destroyed by IBM and the suppliers of these counterfeit batteries are likely going to face the justice system in China (not because of IBM, but because of Lenovo who has exclusive rights to the IBM name).
I absolutely love their ironic tagline... "Shentech - Get Your Money's worth!
The general consensus among coffee aficionados is that the proper brewing temperature is about 200 F (Source, also Wikipedia). This was also the conclusion of another judgement in another lawsuit against Bunn-o-Matic on the same grounds (which was thrown out.)
Juicy tidbit from that link:
(Emphasis added)
Yes, coffee served that hot will do serious damage to human flesh in a short period of time. So will all sorts of properly prepared foods if consumed immediately after cooking.
Yes, many establishments and home brewers deliver tepid coffee. This is sad, but it does not make McDonalds a villain for serving properly prepared coffee (or, at least, coffee that's closer to properly prepared than other places.)
Yes, there are a lot of dipwads that complain to McDonalds after they've burned themselves by spilling coffee or drinking it too soon. McDonalds is not responsible for their idiocy.
In my opinion, the McDonalds case says very little about torts and tort reform, but quite a bit about our legal system in general.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
Also, the greater media neglected to report anything besides "she spilled it on herself and got burned." In actuality, the coffee melted through the bottom of the cup. Not only that, but they had minutes of corporate meetings in which they discussed this problem. They decided that rather than pay the money to replace all of their cups, they would just pay the damages when the problem arises. Seriously, what jury wouldn't give her the money with that evidence presented? (got this information from the Armstrong and Getty radio show a few week back, just fyi.)
Starbucks, and many other coffee shops sell their coffee at the same temperatures to this day. My wife, who worked for 3 different coffee shops in college verified this personally.
Really? The only applicable law I've heard of sets a minimum brew temperature. If there's a law setting maximum serving temperature of coffee at the time the coffee is served, I'd love a reference.
Coffee has been served at these temperatures, industry wide, for decades, and continues to be served this hot to this day. At starbucks, customers actually request temperatures of up to 160 degrees F for their steamed milk drinks (lates, etc.) (that upper bound is based *solely* on the fact that the milk will burn and taste terrible if it gets any hotter), and drip coffee is brewed at 200+ degrees F (which is the ISO standard for brewing machines).
Yes, the woman required reconstructive surgery. She was also an idiot who wasn't appropriate careful with her coffee, and then preceded to sit in the scalding liquid for over a minute and a a half . Anyone with two braincells to rub together should have jumped out of their seat instantly.
If the McDonald's coffee case had any real merit, it would have had coffee-service-industry-wide effects. Short of a "Caution: hot liquid" disclaimer on hot beverage cups, it simply hasn't. While there have been similar suits brought against every major coffee retailer, they've largely failed.
See for yourself -- tell your Starbucks Barista you want your late at 160 Fahrenheit. They'll scribble a note on your cup without hesitation. Order a cup of their drip coffee and stick a thermometer in it. You'll find it's no cooler than the coffee in the McDonald's case.