Slashdot Mirror
"Patent Markings" Lawsuits Could Run Into the Trillions
bizwriter writes "The latest legal bugaboo facing manufacturers is the false patent marking suit. Using what has been until recently an obscure type of legal action, individuals and enterprising law firms have targeted large manufacturers with lawsuits that can easily run million of dollars — in a case involving a drink cup manufacturer, over $10 trillion — for incorrectly including patent numbers on products. Some companies named in such suits are 3M, Cisco, Pfizer, Monster Cable, and Merck. Even expired patent numbers can be actionable." Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to inject some sense into the debate. What do you think the chances are? Note: if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readability bookmarklet, this is it.
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McObviousNegativeFraming No. 1: Noting that McDonald's "had known they had a problem" and then pretending to support that assertion with an unrelated statement about the relative temperature of their coffee.
McObviousNegativeFraming No. 2: Noting that McDonald's "had known they had a problem" and then stating the very next McFact that they had actually never consulted an expert to confirm any such problem. It might be fair to suggest that they could "know" without an expert, but if you're going to note their failure to consult and expert as negligence then you can't simultaneously claim that they "knew" any related fact.
McObviousNegativeFraming No. 3: Putting a warning about potential burns in small letters on the side of a cup passed through a car window does nothing to protect coffee drinkers, particularly those involved in accidental spill; it only protects McDonalds against lawsuits. Claiming that their failure to include such a warning is negligent only exemplifies the retardedness of this sort of lawsuit.
McObviousNegativeFraming No. 4: Citing revenue numbers and not profits is just a low blow. I know coffee is cheap, but time, labor, energy, buildings, equipment, management, and lawyers are not. McDonald's does not "make" $1.3M/day selling coffee, they just collect that much, based on estimates of annualized sales and the list price of a cup of coffee. And even "collect" is a stretch, because not every cup of coffee sells at list price, and not every cent of every transaction is necessarily collected by McDonalds (e.g. credit card processing fees).
Now it's possible that McDonald's really deserved to lose this case. I'm not convinced of that, but I'm not convinced they weren't negligent either. But your attempt to re-frame the issue is poor at best, and if some lawyer made your argument to me I'd be included to find against them just because of the bad logic and abuse of statistics.