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.
How about this is completely unrelated and if I really care about the list of patents on a product I'm probably treating them as a warning, not an ad, and I'd rather they be too-inclusive than super-exclusive?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I wish (US) copyright law worked this way around ... right now there's essentially no risk in tacking on a questionable copyright notice.
> The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents
> cover a given product, or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove
> numbers of patents that had expired.
Don't "lose track". Don't "forget". Or don't mark (it isn't required). Problem solved.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Why is it that editors around here seem to think that laws are made by the courts? This one is a great example - saying it is an opportunity for the Federal Appeals court to do something. Like what? They get to rule based on law. If we need the law changed, the court can't do that - it needs to go to the legislative branch for that.
I still say Monster Cable deserves to be sued to bankrupcy. Same with Best Buy (Worst Buy) and Microsoft.
I'm just wondering who patented this business method. Sheer brilliance, proving that American ingenuity still leads the world.
Oh, and you people who think a court is going to shoot this down? Only of the judges aren't lawyers.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Never going to happen.
In the eyes of the Federal Gov, upholding patents and IPs are so important, it would be considered National Security to protect them. Seriously, what the hell does America have that's worth selling? Nothing except services and IP. We hardly manufacture anything anymore.
Life is not for the lazy.
Let's hope all this patents chaos in the US (and the US trying to push their patents in other countries) doesn't end up in war in some years. I'll like to see US enforcing their patents this way on Russia / China / etc.
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
> Sounds like a perfect opportunity for some enlightened appeals court to
> inject some sense into the debate.
No, it's a perfect opportunity for an enlightened Congress to correct the law. Oh. Wait...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Even better, rather than limiting lawyers to sue for false patent marketing for expired patents or patents which were never filed, we allow lawyers to sue current patents which are obvious or already covered by prior art?
You mean you can patent snake oil?
Wikipedia entry," In one experiment, audiophile listeners could not distinguish between short Monster cables and ordinary coat hangers.[8] Another reviewer concluded that "16-gauge lamp cord and Monster [speaker] cable are indistinguishable from each other with music."[9]
From the article, these are suits against companies claiming patent protection on products when they don't in fact have it.
That's the opposite of claiming patent protection for something you don't have rights to, ie, patent trolling.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
The problem for companies is that they might have lost track of what patents cover a given product, or might have forgotten to update packaging to remove numbers of patents that had expired.
I see no reason to claim this is trolling as the article does (yeah i read it, find the guy that patented RTFA and have him sue me). Marking a product with a patent number is a claim not that you will sue someone for producing a similar item, but a claim that you clearly have legal grounds to do so. Marking a product with an irrelevant patent number then is essentially extortion (i'm unsure if the term 'extortion' can apply to pressuring one into inaction. If there is a more appropriate term, let me know please). Any company putting a patent number on a product has a responsibility to make sure their claim is valid. Not updating packaging perfectly on time should certainly be a more forgivable offense, but totally forgetting what patents cover your products is just unacceptable. How many seperate patents or products could any given company have? I realize the number could get quite high, but nothing a simple database even such as SQlite can't handle. Patents are a legal construct designed to give an innovator a monopoly long enough to capitalize on innovations. I don't know why it would ever need to even be said explicitly but if you are unsure, don't make claims that have legal implications.
The real trolls here are the companies putting false numbers on products.
I have no sympathy with those who claim intellectual property - sure, these lawsuits are filed by scum, but they're filed against people who claim to own ideas. I hope these are long, plentiful, painful lawsuits for both sides.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Specifically if the RIAA issues a DMCA takedown notice because they noticed that your garage band's website has MP3s on it, but they were your garage band's songs, you should be able to sue them for $500 for every file they claimed was infringing! I wonder if you could get away with it under this law...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Note: if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readibility bookmarklet, this is it.
Just skimmed over this: looks pretty awesome.
I don't understand the hubbub about expired patent markings. (1) It costs $ to create new dies for production, so such a requirement just costs companies more, which they have to pass along to customers. (2) Someone looking up the patent can see that it's expired, or is going to expire soon, and hey, here's a large part of the engineering behind the product, we can copy this instead of re-engineering it. That's part of why patents exist, to make that information public.
If a company falsely labels its products with imaginary patent numbers, they deserve to be sued into oblivion. It's outright lying to the public, and an attempt at intimidating would-be competitors. It's wrong and should be punished harshly.
Patents are overused as is, and one of the reasons they are often misused (eg against open source) is because it's easy and relatively risk free. If the costs of misuse can be increased dramatically, many companies may think twice before doing it.
to read Slashdot with an ad-blocker, then? That's basically what you're advocating with your "readability" bookmarklet.
Note: I agree that their site is unbearable to read as-is.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
These suits are against companies asserting patent rights over things that the DO NOT own patents for. The basic defense being offered is "I've done it so much, I couldn't possibly pay the penalty. So the only option is to not hold me accountable!" That basically says that if a robber robs enough people he shouldn't be put in prison. (Sort of the like the banks in America.)
This puts a penalty on asserting patent rights all over the place when you don't have them. Asserting a patent right, blocks competitors who might produce the same thing cheaper.
If companies have to pay a penalty for not keeping track of their patent assertions, then they will be more circumspect in asserting them. That means less frivolous patents.
Substantive, meaningful patents actually work well. The problem is incentives to overwhelm the system which is what is currently being done.
This is simple a case of false advertising. The companies that are being sued labelled their products wrong. "Oh I forgot". Yeah, likely story. I see they did NOT forget to put the patent claim on the product. How odd is that eh?
If it is going to cost the likes of Monster Cable a few millions or even bankrupt them to get false patent claims of products, then I am all for it, and the people bringing these cases making a fortune? Well sometimes the person who cleans up the system gets paid.
Say that someone found a way to make serious money of prosecuting companies sending fake copyright take down notices, would we be against that as well? No.
Sometimes you need to cheer on the slime to get rid of the scum.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Since the premise of the whole thing is that the plaintiff is a friend of "our Lord the King" or the US Government and the defendant submitted false claims to it, and the plaintiff is not personally harmed, there is no need to award the plaintiff any damages. Problems solved, just rule that any damages awarded will go to the aggrieved party, or the US government in this case. Once the lawyers know they are not going to be getting a piece of the award, they will go find some one else to screw^h^h^h^h^h sue.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants? In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress. That lady who sued McDonalds over scalding coffee should at most have gotten her medical and legals bills refunded, with perhaps a couple thousand thrown in for her trouble. That's what she'd get over here (and if I remember correctly, that's what she originally sued McD for). Make no mistake though, actual damages in case of severe injuries can run into millions as well... but we do not reward people for a bit of bad luck or for finding some obscure legal technicality that does not affect anyone. Slipping on the pavement in front of a fancy restaurant should not turn into a windfall, neither should this new form of patent trolling.
If a claimant can prove actual damages caused by improper patent marking, then by all means should they be able to sue for these damages. And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products, they should received reasonable punishment. Some of these amounts sound excessive, and in any case, they should be treated as fines and go to the state, not to some random claimant.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
That's what us old-timers call fraud. It's not OK, no matter how the apologists here may try to spin it. Yes, sometimes it's not cheap or easy to comply with the law - but that doesn't make complying with the law optional no matter how much you wish it was.
Sometimes I wonder if the people who post here think about what they're saying - or if they just scan the article enough to formulate a (weak) opposing point and rush to post it. There's only one thing worse than a patent troll and that's corporations trolling with patents they don't own. If corporations can destroy people for violating their patents, what do you think should be the proper punishment for claiming patents that you don't own?
Nonsense. Materials may be made before the patent expires. What about stuff a few years old that didn't sell at the regular price and is now being sold off for a low price? CD players for example. Should patent numbers be removed before selling? Of course not.
In any event, this whole suing because of patents no longer being valid is nonsensical. Anyone who cares about the patents in a product, will look them up. No need to be pedantic about some patent not being valid any more.
Well the US has been privatizing almost everything for a long time. San Francisco even had a private police station in North Beach funded by the merchants for the merchants, for most of the city's history.
The huge awards in the US courts tend to be around the idea of disgorgement of profits from the illegal act.
The biggest problem with the US legal system is that the wealthy know that to successfully litigate a case of 25k in damages is probably going to run 80k plus, as the cost of a deposition is about 5-10k for each side and you probably need at least six depositions. He said, she said is just out of reach for the lower middle class and the poor.
Also factor into inflation, and the $500 per item fine in the 1800's when the law was passed was real money. I doubt that those numbers would have shown up if the fine was closer to $300,000 per item, which is probably what the original fine was in an inflation adjusted basis. Patents used to mean something, now they are for peanut butter sandwiches with the crust cut off.
Work bio at MMWD
in a case involving a drink cup manufacturer, over $10 trillion
Fact checking please? Do we really think it's possible that a lawsuit against a drink cup manufacturer can equate roughly 3/4ths of the GDP of the United States economy?
All these qui tam actions might be lawyers trying to make a buck, but I feel they are basically beneficial because :
(a) they help out small producers that actually know their own patents, and
(b) they highlight the underlying meaninglessness of the patent system.
We must also remember that judges will weigh the social costs for the various violations. For example, I'd expect that the 21 billion Solo Cup lids case is rather "open and shut", as all those lids were falsely market, but the actual damages are rather small. How many people were wrongfully dissuaded from creating competing lids? I'd hope the court awards Attorney Matthew Pequignot a couple million dollars, but not more.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
.. copyrights never expire.
I'm sure you can sue for false DMCA takedown notices, but tracking down all those false ones will require more than $500 per incident. Imagine a false DMCA takedown notice earns the victim $10k just like abusive collections practices do. We'd most likely still see most victims just sit around and suffer quietly rather than fight.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
All these qui tam cases actually benefit society by making companies comply with the laws, the only problem is lawyers are going after poorly labeled cups instead of Amazon's 1-click patent.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
The whole point of qui tam actions are to encourage people to bring the suits in the first place. They do this with Medicaid fraud in many states, for example. The state might not have the resources to closely examine all possible instances of fraud, or private parties might have better information. So by giving people a cut off the award, you give them an incentive to look for the fraud and to bring it to the government's attention.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Here is a link to the court's decision. It is not a judgment against Solo, but a denial of their request to dismiss the case.
The judge argues the problem of incorrect markings here:
The plaintiff, i.e. the "troll", has not yet made his case. In order to prevail he has to prove that Solo used the incorrect markings "for the purpose of deceiving the public." That remains to be determined.
But therein, it is not clear to me what's really going on here with Solo (for example). It seems that laziness about cleaning up one's patent markings has a distinct reward, i.e. to scare off copy-cat competitors (which is exactly the kind of subsequent activity that the publicly filed/expired patent is intended to encourage). I'm not so sure that these are just mistakes, and in fact, I find it unlikely that there isn't some willfulness here. The corporate counsels that insist on taking advantage of adding the patent markings don't consider the correctness of removing them once they are no longer valid???
It may take a crack of the whip to clean up the rampant "laziness" that leaves these wrong and discouraging markings in use.
Or don't mark (it isn't required).
Yeah, but is that really what we want? At least if they include markings, they let you know that they think this product is covered by a patent. That is much better than a submarine patent that is hidden somewhere in the bottom drawer of a filing cabinet.
Since you have the relevant patent numbers, any semi-competent competitor can go online, look up the patent, and see what exactly is covered by it. If the patent is expired, or simply doesn't apply to your competing product, you'll be able to see it right there. Basically, there is no harm done, so I don't see how you could ask for millions or billions of damage.
If I intend to produce a product and decide not to or to alter the product due to someone falsely claiming they own a patent I should be able to sue and recover both real and punitive damages.
Recently our sour Supreme Court declared that corporations would be treated as real persons. Lies and false claims make real persons liable to punishments. Bailiff! Wack their peepees!!!
If a company can be sued for these quantities of money, effectively bankrupting any company on Earth, shouldn't the companies have people that make absolutely sure that all of this patent stuff is correct?
If the risks are that high, why not mitigate that risk by having a few people keep and maintain this is check? If you could get sued for $2Billion, having 10 people in a company, even at $1Million each is a big cost savings measure for the company.
Companies spend lots of time and money to make sure they won't get sued into oblivion for stupid shit, yet they didn't CYA?
Inflation since then runs close to 1000-1500% (depending on initial year) than 60,000%, actually. Please check out this inflation calculator if you would like to see for yourself.
Inflation since then runs close to 1000-1500% (depending on initial year) than 60,000%, actually. Please check out this inflation calculator if you would like to see for yourself.
Inflation adjustment is not as simple as what the westegg calculator makes it out to be.
Look at the results at measuringworth.com. I would agree that I over estimated off the top of my head, as I over estimated inflation in the 1800's. Personally, I would say that the $70k number is probably the more relevant number as it puts the punishment about the twice the cost of hiring someone at minimum wage for the year.
Work bio at MMWD
It still drives me nuts when people point to that case as evidence that our legal system is broke. It is broke, I don't deny but that case is not one to use. Here are some facts about that particular case and why the jury awarded such a large fine (that was later reduced by a judge): (from http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm in case you want to look yourself).
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.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
Note: if ever there were a page that cries out for the Readibility bookmarklet, this is it.
irony: n. An obvious spelling error in the most salient part of a complaint about poor readability.
McFact No. 9. McDonalds wouldn't make their coffee that hot if people didn't want it that hot. If its hotter than other restaurants, presumably that is their competitive advantage.
This came up in the trial. Managers were encouraged to turn the heat up because the ultra-hot coffee wouldn't cool down enough for the customers to cash in on the free refill unless they loitered long after they'd finished eating the food they'd ordered.
One could start to wonder: What causes the US legal system to be all screwed up? Is it lobbyists who pay off politicians to make crazy laws who then gets transfered to the legal system, or is it court precedence that eventually turns into laws? I for one wonder how much time and resources the US courts waste every year on people suing each other for the pure benefit of earning some easy cash. I'm sure I could sue a tool manufacturer for not placing a warning on the hammer, that it could hurt my finger if i miss the nail. It's sorry to see such degeneration of what some might call "civilization". What ever happened to common sense?
the Solo case [...] It is not a judgment against Solo [...] has to prove that Solo [...] what's really going on here with Solo
Solo, Solo, Solo.
The fat corporate cats seem more like Greed(o).
Sorry. I'll see myself to the door.
McFact No. 9. McDonalds wouldn't make their coffee that hot if people didn't want it that hot. If its hotter than other restaurants, presumably that is their competitive advantage.
This came up in the trial. Managers were encouraged to turn the heat up because the ultra-hot coffee wouldn't cool down enough for the customers to cash in on the free refill unless they loitered long after they'd finished eating the food they'd ordered.
I recall hearing the extra hot coffee was also somehow cheaper to make. (something like: hotter water -> more effecent extraction -> less beans per cup -> profit!
Which sounds like a potential competitive advantage; giving out less coffee while still marketing coffee on the same terms as competitors could reduce costs while maintaining sales.
It's maybe not a customer-friendly policy, but it's not very strong evidence of their negligence toward customer safety either.
I don't see a problem whatsoever with this. If it's patented, it's patented. If it's not, you're interfering with trade and innovation by claiming it is.
It's no different than plagiarism or copying [usually open-source] code and claiming it as your own work ... passing off someone's (copyrighted, which is automatic) work as your own, and putting your own copyright mark on it. That's not legal either.
In this case, they are claiming a patent that they don't own (anymore, or never will, in the case of fraudulent "patent pending" marks) as their own. Expired patents belong to me, you, everyone. Yet by their subterfuge, they intend deny us our right to the patent.
Like the topic says ... live by the sword, die by the sword.
Citing revenue numbers and not profits is just a low blow.
I'm sure McDonalds are a bunch of big boys and can handle it. Not really sure how this is 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.
Care to cite your source?
$1.3M in daily profits from coffee would not be remotely shocking for a company with over 31,000 locations and 47 million customers daily. The gross margins on coffee are around 60% (look at Starbucks income statement if you need proof) and McDonalds EBIT margin in 2008/09 was 29.8%. McDonalds had revenues around $30 billion last year. If they really made $1.3M on coffee per day in profit that means their annual coffee sales were around $1.6 billion or if the gross margin is used the number is more like $780 million in sales. Big numbers but quite reasonable given McDonalds revenues and the amount of coffee they sell. Starbucks revenues by comparison were just under $10 billion last year as a quick sanity check so $1.6 billion in coffee sales from McDonalds sounds pretty reasonable. I'm actually a little surprised it's not higher.
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).
The percent of losses due to these factors is minor (2-4% at most is typical in the industry) and without question quite well known to McDonalds accountants. It is accounted for (indirectly) in their financial statements so any numbers you look at will have factored this in already.
Disclosure: I am a certified accountant.
Loser pays actually helps a lot more than you're describing. It makes it enormously more feasible for attorneys to take cases on contingency, especially obviously ridiculous ones.
EVERY attorney I've ever spoken with (and that is a lot of them) has told me that if a case goes to court there is at minimum a 10% chance they will lose the case no matter how iron clad their argument. Even being correct is no guarantee that you will win once the case gets to a judge/jury. If we have a loser pays system that is a pretty substantial risk for a party who can't afford to lose.
Don't get me wrong, I think there should be some form of loser pays in the system - we just have to be careful how it is implemented.
Unconscionable because terms are revealed after the sale in tiny print where they tell you there are no refunds(the only part you really care about) whether you agree to their bullshit terms or not.
I think you'll have a hard time finding any judge who will agree that terms written in black and white on your ticket are unconscionable. You are legally allowed to sell the ticket for at least the face value of the ticket in every state in the US. Some states even allow you to sell it for more than face value.
Unenforceable because the agent selling me the ticket isn't a competent attorney or even a paralegal;
Doesn't have to be. Any two competent adults (presumably you are one) can enter into a binding contract. You also can enter into a contract with a corporation (a legal person) which is what you are doing when you use the ticket. The ticket taker is a legally authorized agent of the corporation for this purpose. Do you really think the lawyers for the NFL/MLB/NBA are so stupid that they haven't thought this out?
Yes, it is. It's the very definition of not caring about your customers: allowing them to potentially come to harm for your own profit.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
In more recent developments, Solo is granted summary judgment. BNet's cited blog post must have missed it.
http://www.williamsmullen.com/rocketdocketiplit/blog.aspx?topic=63&All=null&IsListParentTopic=true
"Last week, in a case it described as one of "practically first impression," the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Solo Cup Co. that it was not liable for improper patent marking under 35 U.S.C. 292(a). Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., No 1:07cv897-LMB/TCB (E.D. Va. July 2, 2009). The Court agreed with Solo that the advice of counsel it received to replace patent-marking molds with non-marking molds in a gradual fashion was reasonable. Solo's overall conduct was held to evidence a lack of intent to deceive the public. The Court also held that an "offense" under the statute is the overall decision to mark improperly, thereby rejecting Pequignot's argument that Solo should be penalized for each and every lid it marked."
"Solo also prevailed on summary judgment with respect to its fallback position, namely, that even if there were intent to deceive the public, the offenses punishable under the statute are the decisions to mark improperly, not each and every marking of a product. Thus, in an alternative holding, the Court decided that the maximum amount of damages for which Solo could be liable is $1500."
And in a recent article by Law Professor Thomas Field, http://www.ipfrontline.com/printtemplate.asp?id=24082
"The opinion in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 646 F.Supp.2d 790 (E.D. Va. 2009) (Pequignot III), a case resolved last August, and now on appeal, signals a very different, perhaps more typical view of those who seek to recover under section 292(b). There, the court grants summary judgment for Solo because it was unable to find deceptive intent."
hi!
Because without punitive damages companies will - boy, oh boy are there oodles of examples - just do wrong until they get caught ... if they get caught and only have to pay some potential small fine.
Punitive damages punish those who did wrong on purpose.
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/01/1782803/nearly-2-million-awarded-to-blue.html
This car dealer KNOWLINGLY sold a previously damages car to a young couple without disclosing it. The damage was not readily visible to a non technical car person.
The car dealer refused to cover issues with the car UNDER WARRANTY THEY SOLD.
Yeah, they got hit with punitive damages. And maybe, maybe they won't do it again.
For clarification - the McDonalds hot coffee women did get a dramatically reduced amount of money. However before you pass judgement on her case you may wish to review the facts of the case. There was/were a reason(s) ( unknown by you ) that the jury initially awarded the large sum and it was not that their parking ticket was not validated that day at the county court house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants I will help you out with a line from the wiki . Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 F (82–88 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. My home hot water heater was government limited ( I have to override the configuration with the vendor on the phone to get the proper instructions AND I need an updated thermostat ( I have a Rheem tankless ) to 120 degrees because any higher can cause burns. McDonalds was 60 degrees hotter. Read the wiki and then come back and say she did not deserve; all she initially wanted was the medical bills paid - for her skin grafts ( whooo, thats a fun thing to fake to collect some extra money if you are an 80 year old lady .... ).
They don't have the patent, it is a lie. You are not allowed to do that. If you start allowing this kind of stuff, well then you get the world we have today. Where filming your kid dancing to prince gets you a lawyer letter.
And no, they did not forget. Companies of these sizes don't forget anything. Or maybe they should spend half of the resources they spend on EULA's on actually checking wether what they are claiming is legal. Oops, that is the EULA's down the drain as well, even more time to check things.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
How about reforming the law to do away with the moronic idea of awarding "punitive damages", or whatever it is called in cases like these, to claimants?
So how do you propose to make large companies pay attention to their bad behavior? The medical bills are pocket change and a company doesn't have a sense of ethics. They exist to make money. That is the ONLY reason most of them exist. If a company misbehaves one way to punish the company is to do so financially - hence, punitive damages.
If you have a better idea I'm sure lots of people would be interested but I'm pretty sure you don't.
In some countries, like the one I live in, payments to claimants are pretty much limited to actual damages and legal fees, maybe with a small bit added on top for things like mental anguish or redress.
Which is an approach that potentially rewards large companies for bad behavior. If the benefit of the bad behavior outweighs the financial cost, the company is going to behave badly. People have died because of this sort of cost/benefit analysis.
And if another company has been naughty and put incorrect markings on their products, they should received reasonable punishment.
Agreed but you don't seem to have a very clear idea of what reasonable might be. A $50,000 fine to McDonalds is not a punishment.
Some of these amounts sound excessive, and in any case, they should be treated as fines and go to the state, not to some random claimant.
Why is the state any more deserving? Besides, the state will take much of it in taxes anyway.
Have the state levy a heavy fine.
The state is levying a heavy fine - it's just paid to an individual instead of the treasury. You seem to be unaware that the judiciary is part of the state. I trust the executive/legislative branches of state less than a plaintiff in a lawsuit to do something useful with the money. Our government is not renowned for their careful use of funds from any source.
The point is not the amount of the fine, but who gets the money.
If you are injured I can't think of anyone better than you to get the money. I'm willing to trust you to put it to good use. I don't trust our government to do the same and the government will get its cut by way of taxes anyway.
If someone benefits, I would rather see it go to the state who will use it for the good of us all (or at least the same "good" they spend other taxes on), rather than some random guy who "got lucky" having an accident.
"Lucky"? You think getting third degree burns, being disfigured, maimed or otherwise badly injured makes you lucky? I think someone confined to a wheelchair for life wouldn't describe themselves as lucky no matter how much money they won in a lawsuit. You have a strange definition of luck my friend...
And I disagree with you that the state is any better to get the money. The state was not injured and probably was not involved and I certainly don't trust the state with any sort of windfall cash.
McSolution 2. All cups should come with a warning label: Danger, do not use your crotch as a holding mechanism for this cup.
McSolution 3 Warning label 2: Items that are above or below your body temperature may cause discomfort. If it's hot, it may burn, if it's cold, it may freeze.
McSolution 4 remove all ice from products, because ice can not only cause surfaces to become cold, possibly casing circulation issues, the sharp edges of Ice cubes can cause cuts(I have experience in this)
I once spilled a cup of very hot coffee into my sock, silly as that sounds. I also had an elastic ankle brace on at the time, and by the time I got the sock off, I had a second degree burn, Painful big blister, and I was not walking much for the next several days.
But it was MY fault. I reached for the cup, and misjudged, knocking the thing over. Then I grabbed for it and the lid came off, spilling the contents into my sock. It isn't fashionable, but I take responsibility for my own actions.
Now if the cup blew up or the printing on the side of it was poison, then hurt me, that would be an actionable offense against someone.
If I store a hot substance near my genitals I know it's hot, What ever could go wrong?
Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
I wish I had some Karma points to give you. This is an issue that really needs to be dealt with. If we are going to give corporations the rights of citizens, we really need to give them the responsibilities as well. Allowing corporate executives to hide behind the corporate veil is plain wrong. The corporate veil was written to protect small business' from bankrupting their owners when things go bad business wise and the company goes under. Ironically, most banks won't lend a small business money unless the owners tie their personal assets to the business now. My brother lost everything (including his house, it's contents, and his vehicles) when his auto parts wholesale business went out of business because he couldn't compete with the internet. Most of his customers (small garages and such) switched to ordering their parts off of the internet from really large (Walmart type) of wholesalers as they could buy their parts from them at the same price my brother was paying for his inventory. Folks, we've got a problem. Right here in River City. A problem... (My apologies to the writers of "Music Man".
Nothing remains as constant as change.