Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Gov't Still Fighting the Man Behind Buckyballs; Guess Who's Winning?
usacoder writes with news of Craig Zucker, former CEO of the company behind Buckyballs, the popular neodymium magnet toys that were banned by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in July 2012. Zucker ran a brief campaign to drum up opposition to the government's ban, but it didn't turn out to be enough. Unfortunately for Zucker, the story didn't end there. Despite the magnets being labeled as not for kids, the Commission filed a motion to find him personally liable for the costs of a product recall, estimated at around $57 million.
"Given the fact that Buckyballs have now long been off the market, the attempt to go after Mr. Zucker personally raises the question of retaliation for his public campaign against the commission. Mr. Zucker won't speculate about the commission's motives. 'It's very selective and very aggressive,' he says. ... Mr. Zucker says his treatment at the hands of the commission should alarm fellow entrepreneurs: 'This is the beginning. It starts with this case. If you play out what happens to me, then the next thing you'll have is personal-injury lawyers saying "you conducted the actions of the company, you were the company."'"
What's the sense in having laws if you can't apply them selectively and perniciously.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
no, thats NOT good. that means that you can be personally sued for anything that goes on with the company. imagine you had a startup ladder company and you personally got sued for 100M dollars because your ladder caused injury to some dumbass who set it up upside down. you think im being silly? you do know why they have all those stickers on the ladder telling you how to use it dont you? it is because the companies LOST a lawsuit for that very reason. it would be totally ridiculous to fine a person for the actions or products of a company, even if that person created or is in charge of the company.
This doesn't make sense. The larger a company is and the more persons in decision-making roles throughout the org, the *less* likely a company is acting with sufficient imperative to justify piercing the corporate veil.
In reality, you seem to just be saying that Big Companies are Evil. Sorry, that doesn't fly. Limited Liability, and Corporate Personhood generally, are both there for reasons.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Just shut up and take it.. Ask for more. How dare you create a product that could be misused if used inappropriately.
Now, joking aside this is really scary that the government is doing this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Except that this, the very case that's "starting it all", is also the exact reason why this is not the right way to do things. Somewhere in the middle, perhaps, as sometimes it is the actions of one person which need to be punished, but it is more often the actions of the company as a whole, the culture behind how the company operates, that needs to be addressed.
This man did nothing wrong; he sold a product that was not safe for kids to use and labeled it as not safe for kids to use. He should not be liable for the actions of the employees of the toy stores who sold them to kids, nor for the actions of the employees of the distribution houses that sold them to the toy stores who hired employees who then sold them to kids. He didn't sell them to kids himself, and he didn't sell them to toy stores where he'd only reasonably expect that they'd be sold to kids. He labeled them as not safe for kids and clearly did not intend for them to be sold to, or used by, kids. Blame all of the irresponsible parties for any children harmed by these things, for sure; let's start with the parents who bought these for their kids or left their own set where their kids could get to them (they're labeled quite clearly and should be locked away from young children, and only used by older children under close supervision, just like any other dangerous item), then the purchasing agent at the toy store who thought it would be a good idea to sell an item labeled as not safe for children in a place where things are bought primarily by and for children, then the distribution house employee(s) who thought selling unsafe items to toy stores would be a great way to make a buck. And that's where it should stop.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
How about the parents who gave their [now dead] children (read: under 13) the thing be charged with manslaughter, unless giving them other things they shouldn't have which results in death [the list is is quiter long, but includes firearms, cutlery, chemicals, etc.] is also okey-dokey.
Corporate personhood is *not* a good thing, no matter what you corporate sycophants think. Elevating a corporation to the same level in the law as an individual is a recipe for abuse, and it's rife in the USA.
Corporations should have a set of *limited* and *enumerated* rights that are secondary to individuals, not personhood.
And, yes, there is a reason corporate personhood exists... it's because robber barons in the 1800s wanted that way. Corporate rights aren't sent to us by God.
...because he set it upside down.
So the problem is not the liability but the stupidness of the judicial system that allows for bogus claims. Correct the problem, not something that happens to be vagely related.
As long as he gets utterly rich if everything goes according his plans, he must be the one cleaning the mess if his company throws shit to a fan
"the vast majority are frivolous lawsuits" cite sources
This has been studied extensively. Every study I have read on this shows that judges tend to toss out the frivolous lawsuit and that the majority of cases that got to trial actual have some merit.
As long as were piercing the corporate veil, shouldn't we go after the CEO's that have cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars first? Or are government rules and regulations, and punitive actions only applicable for the little guy?
1. The product was not defective.
2. No harm was done that I have read.
3. No, the banks were not prosecuted, which makes this even more egregious.
4. He didn't make a mistake.
This is the out of control Feds doing what they do best, punish people who are creative and trying to get ahead. It is about control.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
DealExtreme.com - it's where I've been getting mine from since this asshattery started.
http://dx.com/s/magnet+balls
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
The shot-callers at the banks who are causing all this harm are wildly rich. Same with the oil companies. And of course that matters because everyone in government service wants a piece of that pie, and the way they get it is by allowing the harm to continue unabated.
We can pontificate about how government should serve the greater good all we want, and the saying of these words will not have the slightest impact on the actual incentives that governors face, nor on the mechanisms by which selfish bastards rise to power. Musing about how things should be will not make anything become that way.
So, asking the government to do things will never yield the desired result. Force is the only language these sociopaths understand. Unless sufficiently-large numbers of people wise up to how government actually works, we will never be able to mount that force.
In that regard, Snowden has done more good than all slashdot users combined, over slashdot's entire history.
Citizen's United didn't create the concept of corporations as people. That has been a longstanding principle carried over from common law. Note also that companies are not the same as corporations and the former does not have the privileges of personhood.
The company in question is Maxfield & Oberton Holdings LLC. The limited liability aspect should be enough to protect the owners from a rapacious civil servant but clearly some people are more interested in furthering their careers with safety-nazi crusades than properly observing the law.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
If it was me and I had my life's work taken from me, and now being forced into bankruptcy and poverty, I'd hold the CPSC leaders responsible.
A government without fear of the people is not a republic. Time to put the fear back into them.
"So there is a chance companies will no longer get pathetic fines and be pretty much unaccountable for this misdeeds. Individuals who made decisions within the organization will be held responsible. Good."
Um... NO.
First, you have to identify actual misdeeds. Buckyballs were NOT sold as children's toys! They were labeled that they were NOT for children.
The fact that Buckyballs were recalled at all is what is pathetic. But also of great concern. Because if the government were to win, then any company that makes cleaning products that kids get hold of and poison themselves with... or car manufacturers... or makers of power tools... anybody who sells things that are NOT children's toys could be prosecuted simply because someone let their children play with them (or negligently gave them access).
The criminals here were the adults who let children play with unsafe objects. Hell, makers of children's toys who include a label that says "Warning! Contains small parts. Not for children under 4 years old." is exempt from this kind of government harassment. Yet you're seeing someone being pursued for this when they weren't even selling children's toys! It is OUTRAGEOUS.
This is an extremely dangerous precedent and the government must lose this case. Otherwise, anybody could be prosecuted for anything, merely if some child gets hold of it. Bad, bad, bad.
no, thats NOT good. that means that you can be personally sued for anything that goes on with the company.
Since the lawsuit was filed by the Federal Government, let's carry this a bit further. If any employee of the Federal government (this includes judges) can be shown to have caused harm through malfeasance or negligence, then that employee can be held personally liable for the decision. Think anyone would want to work for the government under those conditions?
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
I played with a Bow and Arrow as a child - target arrows at least. I would fire them straight up in a field and then run to where they fell. firing them across a field was also fun and I played with large numbers of BlackCat firecrackers too. Looking back sure there was potential for stupidity and injury but it never happened. Why must we wrap kids in bubblewrap now?
As an aside - I had a magnet collection as a child. All sorts of shapes, sizes, and some were VERY strong. Never once did it ever occur to me to place them in my mouth or swallow them, I was taught better than that. Why are kids today so damned stupid? Teens swallowing these trying to imitate piercings is plain retarded...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Actually, that isn't even close to a logical conclusion. What it says is that nobody will be able to start a new company unless they are very, very rich. It also says that nobody will want to start a company, since if they are very rich they have little to gain and everything to lose.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Buckyballs were labeled as for adults and not for kids before the commission came after him. However, because they are so similar to a "toy" it was labeled as a concern by the government. In my opinion, this action removes personal responsibility from the parents (the product was clearly labeled), and there should have been no actions against Buckyballs as long as they were properly labeled. There are many other products out there that are far more dangerous which look like toys which do not have these concerns.
Further, it begs the question:
Is it the norm for similar cases where the owner/company simply went out of business (without doing a recall) on an unsafe product, for the owners to be held liable for the cost of a potential recall after the fact?
If he is held personally liable, but a large number of other cases had companies which went out of business and the owners were not held liable - it seems likely there was some type of bias on his case.
One last item:
Protection from personal liability when you are a shareholder/officer of a corporation isn't absolute (you can still be held legally personally liable in certain cases.) Certain people here advise they don't like this fact, as they feel people should be personally liable. However, to be frank - fewer people would take risks if they faced personal ruin due to a lawsuit. A better option would be to revoke a company's incorporation status and in repeat offenses remove the ability for people to be part of another corporation perhaps. This would have the positives, without the negatives.
That would be a good thing. There are far to many brainless people working in government, this commission is just one example.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
ROTFLMA. The servers at www.cpsc.gov are broke:
Server Error in '/' Application. Runtime Error Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine. Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off". Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If they didn't go after buckyballs, they'd have to waste time going after other products which are labeled as unsafe for kids, like caffeinated alcohol drinks, or alcohol in general (you really think all those kids puking their guts out at spring break are of legal age?). Cigarettes are still being sold to kids despite the labels, so maybe recall them also?
Corporate personhood, entrepreneurship, big business vs. small, selective enforcement, none of those are the issue here. The issue is that corporations exist specifically to protect the personal assets of the individuals behind them. Otherwise no one would invest in anything, since that would expose all their worldly goods to liabilities incurred by the company, instead of just the amount they invested. (Lloyd’s of London is a notable exception; investors pledge all their personal assets. But that’s a special case.)
Now, criminal wrongdoing is a different matter. Obviously you don’t get to form an LLC to rob banks and then enjoy immunity. But that’s not what’s happening here.
Hypothesis: ...
1. Manufacturers generally get sued for all kinds of crazy reasons, when people have been stupid while using their products.
2. Manufacturers slap on "not safe for kids" and similar labels all the time, just to be safe.
3. The label loses any semantic meaning, since it is always there. People start to ignore it, and try to rely on their own judgement.
4. Parents see a box of funny little magnets. How can they be dangerous? There is lack of imagination as to what happens with more than one of those in a small child's intestines.
5.
6. Visit to the ER.
He should have just marketed a real gun for kids. He'd probably still be in business, and some court would probably have ruled that neither he or his company could be sued for damages resulting from the use of his product. Perhaps his next venture should be buckyguns.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Originally the idea of corporations as people was NOT a privilege. It was a liability in that it made corporations subject to legal action.
If they were not people they weren't subject to legal action in court, you could not sue them and you certainly could not regulate them or hold them to a contract.
Now of course it's been taken too far and corporate people have become bestowed with more and more attributes of personhood as time goes on. Citizen's United is the most famous recent aspect of this.
According to Wikiepdia:
Buckyballs launched at New York International Gift Fair in 2009 and sold in the hundreds of thousands before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall on packaging labeled 13+.[2] According to the CPSC, 175,000 units had been sold to the public. It is not known how many sets were actually returned. Buckyballs labeled "Keep Away From All Children" were not recalled.
Subsequently, Maxfield & Oberton changed all mentions of âoetoyâ to âoedesk toyâ, positioning the product as a stress-reliever for adults and restricted sales from stores that sold primarily children's products.
So apparently they were being marketed as "toys" at some point.
Because if the government were to win, then any company that makes cleaning products that kids get hold of and poison themselves with... or car manufacturers... or makers of power tools... anybody who sells things that are NOT children's toys could be prosecuted simply because someone let their children play with them (or negligently gave them access).
I don't know how you do it in America but in the UK the law generally works on the basis of what a "reasonable person" would think and assume. Clearly a reasonable person would not consider a cleaning products, a car or a power tool to be a suitable toy. What a reasonable person does think is ultimately up to a jury though.
It's also worth noting that cleaning products usually do have prominent warnings on them. Cars need a license to drive that isn't available to children and also come with pages of warnings in the manual (since they don't come in a box). Power tools also have warnings on them. Remember that Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
No, the company was told to come up with a corrective action plan to deal with the danger which the Consumer Product Safety Board thought that the product posed The CPSB gave them a two week deadline or face a lawsuit. In the meantime, contrary to precedent, the CPSB contacted retailers directly. The CPSB filed lawsuit the morning after the corrective action plan was filed (meaning the CPSB had not had time to review the plan before they submitted the lawsuit).
In response to the lawsuit, the CEO of the company launched a PR campaign to attempt to raise public awareness and political pressure to save his business. When the PR campaign failed, the CEO dissolved the company (since the CPSB had essentially outlawed their only product). Oh, and by the way, my understanding of the legality of the situation is that it was legal to continue selling the Buckyballs until the CPSB got a court ruling in their favor.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Except that the government had not banned them. The government started the process of banning them. There were still several steps to go before it actually banned them. The company had no customers by the time the government had actually banned them.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I even read (or heard on the radio) some expert claiming that shareholders did not "own" companies, because companies were persons and laws against slavery prevent people owning other people. Yes, really! His argument was that shareholders only owned an entitlement to some share of future profits. Nothing more.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The sad thing is, it wasn't marketed towards children, yet it seems safer than party balloons, which are marketed towards children.
One of the few injuries (not deaths, like we have with balloons) from Buckyballs was the ingestion after someone put them on a cake. At some point you need to give up trying to protect people......
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You say that as if he were selling fireworks, caustic cleaning supplies, or surplus hand grenades.
He complied, labeling the product as not for children, and not for ingestion. The same kind of warnings that show up on fireworks *and* caustic cleaning supplies. I don't believe hand grenades have the same warning on them.
Well it seems that there is a warning on smoke greandes"DANGER-DO NOT USE HC IN CONFINED OR ENCLOSED AREAS- PERSONNEL MUST WEAR THE PROTECTIVE MASK IN ANY CONCENTRATION OF HC SMOKE" It doesn't say you can't feed it to children though.
Next time you hear about a child getting hurt with a firework, household cleaning supplies, or falling off a bicycle, be sure to remind them to sue the CEO for selling dangerous items. Don't forget to sue the CEO of every company along the entire distribution chain too.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Remember that Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.
But they were never marketed as "food", specifically or otherwise. It is notable that a "reasonable person" needs to be reminded of the distinction.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Because if the government were to win
Unfortunately, the government already won. The case is over, the company closed down.
Now the worst part is the government wasn't satisfied with that, and they are suing the creator for basically everything he owns, despite very few injuries, and no deaths as a result of these balls.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
... let's carry this a bit further. If any employee of the Federal government ...
Zucker was not "any employee". He was the founder, CEO, and primary beneficiary of the product's former success. I am not saying he should be liable for the full cost of the recall, but I am saying your analogy is silly.
What has your example got to do with this situation? The company was told to stop selling a product because it was dangerous. The CEO personally decided to carry on selling it anyway, instead of stopping and then fighting the ruling.
It has nothing to do with the stupidity of the user, and everything to do with the CEO personally making a decision he had been warned could lead to people being hurt, and then some people got hurt. Feel free to debate personal responsibility all you like, but it is irrelevant here. No matter how stupid the government's decision to ban the product was failure to comply with the ban makes him liable.
Speaking of personal responsibility, they're holding him personally responsible for his actions.
Please explain why the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" shouldn't apply in this case.
Who gave that magnet to the kid?
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
I don't believe hand grenades have the same warning on them.
As a former Marine, I have some experience with hand grenades, and I can assure you that every case of grenades comes with an entire booklet of warnings, written in dense legalese.
At work we have all sorts of fun with them. Hanging them from the lights and seeing how many can dangle - they nearly touch the floor. Making obscene sculptures out of them (some of the ones I have are as big as superballs). Pretty much it's just an idle distraction and some fun showing people the differences with magnetic polarity and whatnot. Leave a pile on your desk or hanging from something and you'll find that people cannot resist picking them up and making things with them. Mindless fun really although as a child they would have kept me entertained for hours I'm sure - I had a collection of magnets and I'd sit there for hours getting paperclips and other magnets to dance.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Most infuriating was the commission's argument that a total recall was justified because Buckyballs have "low utility to consumers" and "are not necessary to consumers."
Quite a LOT of stuff is sold that is low utility to consumers, and not necessary. Should something, bought by consenting adults, for adults, be recalled because it might pose a danger, and is "low utility?"
My kid ate one or your magnets and had to have his bowel removed is not necessarily a bogus claim.
So if your stupid crotch fruit eats some drain cleaner it's the drain cleaner manufacturers fault fault, right? No moron. It's your fault.
THEY'RE CLEARLY LABELED AS NOT FOR KIDS.
I am so tired of the lack of personal responsibility in society today. It's always someone else at fault.
Who is John Galt?
They beat stress-balls over and over when you need a coding break.
All I can say is: only in America can they ban a magnet but argue against even the most basic control over a gun...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Parents see a box of funny little magnets. How can they be dangerous?
And who's fault is that? It's certainly not the fault of the person who started the company that makes the product. If anything the parent should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Who is John Galt?
Remember that Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.
Yet I have trouble regarding them as anything else. How many children are idiotic enough to swallow them and die, and why does the existence of such people mean that products must be banned?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I used to buy Tritum keychains from DX as well because I couldn't get them shipped here from the UK. Seems that illumination using Tritium is considered a "trivial use of radiation" and keychains need not apply. Never mind that my watches have it and so do many gun sights. However, like the powerful lasers DX used to sell it seems these were pulled...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmgXZ9atf58
http://club.dx.com/forums/forums.dx/threadid.994836
DX sells, last I looked, GPS jammers, Cell jammers, all sorts of things that make the Govt. twitch. Having seen some of these firsthand purchased by others I can't help but laugh at crap like the banning of these balls. The day I heard about it I bought some from DX just to give them the finger.
P.S. The lasers were apparently put in their own store now -> http://www.yourlasers.com/
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
My kid ate one or your magnets and had to have his bowel removed is not necessarily a bogus claim.
You have to eat more than one to have the problem. A single one passes through without attracting itself to anything else.
And if you commonly let your kid near or play with dangerous items you are a totally ignorant crappy parent who ought take some personal responsibility for all of your failings instead of blaming other people for them.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm saying that if the CEO personally decides to go against the ban and people get hurt then he has to accept some responsibility.
Except that's not what happened. You would know that wasn't actually what happened if you did even a cursory look into the events as they unfolded. Your whole rant about sticking it to the CEO being good is entirely misguided.
This guy is an asshole. Anyone who bottles and resells tap water has a place in the special hell. Anyone who profits from exploiting the name of a great thinker ("Bucky"balls?) has a place in the special hell. He dissolved the company in order to avoid paying for the recall. Special hell.
Some more neutral coverage than the WSJ's:
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Fucking parents, how do they work?
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Buckyballs were being marketed as "toys" quite specifically.
So are butt plugs. Your point being?
I don't believe hand grenades have the same warning on them.
As a former Marine, I have some experience with hand grenades, and I can assure you that every case of grenades comes with an entire booklet of warnings, written in dense legalese.
and you have to read all of it within ten seconds
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Really? Really? You're gonna slam the WSJ as impossible partisan and site the NYT as a no-partisan source?
Only problem is, there are no misdeeds. These things were clearly labeled as not for kids. While there has been a very small number of injuries (small enough that many toys intended for children are actually more dangerous), they are clearly not the fault of the manufacturer, distributor., etc, but the fault of inattentive parents. There will always be injuries to children because of inattentive parents.
Unless you want a complete nanny-state, where everything potentially dangerous to kids is prohibited (wonder how they will get rid of all those stones just lying around, for example), you have to accept that parents are responsible for their kids safety. That includes teaching them to be careful when they are older and it also most definitely includes not letting anything dangerous lying around within their reach when they are at an age where they take everything into their mouths.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I'm in complete agreement with you. Ever since the early 90's the world has moved towards a "its not my fault because" type attitude. Its not my fault that little sally is a b*tch and failing school, she has ADHD/Aspergers....
I've got three kids, and one had a set of buckyball magnets. I gave them to a 15 year old as he was old enough to know he shouldn't eat them. When they were in the "everything goes into the mouth" phase i didn't give them powerful magnets. I bought age-appropriate toys to avoid this exact problem. It should be common sense that at a certain age you need to watch the kids and protect them from themselves.
Combine the "it wasn't my fault attitude" with the ability to sue for a lot more then if you won an average lottery and you have a real mess on your hands.
"So apparently they were being marketed as "toys" at some point."
But not, as far as I know, children's toys, and especially not small children's toys. Go to ThinkGeek and look at all the toys. But they aren't being marketed for children, much less small children.
"I don't know how you do it in America but in the UK the law generally works on the basis of what a "reasonable person" would think and assume. Clearly a reasonable person would not consider a cleaning products, a car or a power tool to be a suitable toy. What a reasonable person does think is ultimately up to a jury though."
Of course, the U.S. is also a Common Law country, so we also have the "reasonable person" standard. But isn't that the whole point? If a manufacturer clearly marks something Keep Away From All Children, as Buckyballs clearly did, is it "reasonable" to hold the manufacturer responsible when your kid swallows them?
Or is it more "reasonable" to blame the parents for putting something known to be hazardous within the reach of small children?
Or make things that stick together.
Silence is a state of mime.
Well, I'm of the opinion that everything in this world doesn't have to be "somebody's fault". Or more precisely; placing blame isn't necessarily very interesting or useful to solve a problem. Sometimes, it's just better to look at things as they are, objectively without judgement, to identify the most constructive course of action.
I'm certainly not trying to argue that this is the manufacturers fault. The parents shouldn't let their children play with such things, so if you must choose a single party to point at, it would probably be them. But the reality of it is that people are going to make mistakes. Not everyone is going to realise all potentials dangers all the time. Doing something as extreme as prosecuting the parents for child abuse in this situation isn't actually going to help anybody, unless they force-fed their kids magnets. And in all likelihood, those parents already got a number of sleepless nights and enough feelings of guilt to very careful selecting toys in the future, which is about as much as you can realistically hope to achieve.
From a more systemic point of view (and without having seen exactly how the warning used to read), I am guessing that the best solution to reduce the number of accidents, if that's what we want to do, would be to explain more clearly why the magnets are dangerous to children. People are usually more inclined to follow instructions if they fully understand the logic behind them. For example: "If accidentally swallowed, these magnets will get stuck in the intestines, probably tearing a hole in them. Treat them like poison. Keep them away from children." would be more effective than for example: "This is not a children's toy. Improper use can lead to injury or death."
As long as he gets utterly rich if everything goes according his plans, he must be the one cleaning the mess if his company throws shit to a fan
Agreed. The problem here is that it wasn't his company that threw the shit, it was just his fan it was thrown into.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
If your child is not 'with it' enough to recognize the fact swallowing inedible objects is really really stupid and dangerous then they need constant supervision at all times.
ALL small children will put anything they find in their mouth, it's a hard wired instinctive behaviour that's starts as soon as they are born and is mostly gone by time they hit school. Very young babies spend most of their waking hours staring at their hands and punching themselves in the face in an attempt to figure out how to use their arms to get stuff into their face. And yes, you do have to keep an eye on them 24x7.
I cannot agree with the court. The were clearly marked not for children, the labels are aimed at the parents who buy them, not the kids that swallow them. If the problem is common then it probably indicates a low awareness of the hazard by parents so perhaps I can agree with withdrawing them from stores. However the product is in no way "defective" so I certainly don't agree the company (let alone the CEO personally) should be liable for the cost of recalling stock that was bought and sold legally and in good faith. To me that smacks of retrospective punishment.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
He marketed them as toys for adults, clearly labeled as not for kids.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Three points (from the article itself):
1) Zucker did not market buckyballs. The company, of which he is CEO, marketed them.
2) Zucker may have been the CEO of the LLC, but under the current laws there is no excuse for the regulatory commission going after a single person, rather than the company that he ran.
3) The company clearly *did* consider the risks of this product, as they originally marketed them as 13+. His company went on to be even more clear when it became obvious that idiots cannot comprehend what problems magnets can cause.
---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
The problem with this train of thought is where do you draw the line? Recall the hot coffee story a number of years ago. What temperate should coffee be served and who is responsible if you drive and spill it on yourself?
Some things already have ridiculous warnings like metal ladders and "do not use near live electrical lines". Does it need to be said that metal conducts electricity and therefor if the ladder touches a live wire bad things will happen?
Everyone is looking for a multi-million dollar lawsuit and so you get product warning labels warning you that the product label warning could give you a paper cut..
And to add to that, by the way: Here there may (again) be a problem with the legal tradition in the US. Presumably, writing something broad like "improper use can lead to injury or death" is safer from a culpability reduction perspective than being specific, since then you have covered any possible way someone may hurt themselves. Otherwise, someone can argue that you didn't describe exactly the way they got hurt. It is, on the other hand, probably more likely that someone actually will hurt themselves, than if you are specific with the dangers.
What's stopping your dumbass kid from eating a ball bearing of the exact diameter of a buckyball? The strength of a typical electromotor case, I'm guessing. So why aren't the Fed banning vacum cleaners, etc?
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
In summary, I think the action of the CPA was justified.
They would be if the object of the action weren't so arbitrary. I can think of several dozen other products that could be defined as dangerous but aren't, but they aren't a hot new item, are they?
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
The purpose of the limited-liability corporation is that corporate liabilities stop with the company's assets and do not follow into the pockets of the owners.
Certain insurance companies (Lloyds of London) do not have limited liabilities because the owners back the policies with their huge fortunes, giving you assurance the company has the funds to pay out if necessary. Some spectacular tanker and space shot losses about 10 years ago got them into trouble as some people had to sell their estates to make good.
Unless this guy was involved in some massive fraud, this isn't supposed to happen.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
could the parents not fucking READ?? That's called parental negligence, not some creep in a trenchcoat handing out snake egg magnets at the school gates and daring the little darlings to swallow them!
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
And unjust as well. It can be argued that the Cosa Nostra occasional does positive things. I'm still waiting for a single positive outcome from Scientology.
The box had a warning label, but not the product...
Neither do balloons, yet dozens of kids choke to death on them every year.
The box had a warning label, but not the product, and unlike drain cleaner the product does not stay in the box, it's designed to be stuck to things.
Neither do tacks or dozens of other things that aren't for children. Isn't it pretty common knowledge that if it will fit in their mouth count on a kid eating it? I don't have kids and I know that. If the frigging box says not for children I'm going to take it out of the box and THEN assume it's safe for children. That's ridiculous. From what I've seen of buckyballs there isn't room to put the warning on the balls themselves where it would actually be readable.
In addition they then enhanced the buckyball line by introducing a range of candy colours, (oranges, pink, red, blue) from memory, the orange looked particularly delicious. The drugs industry goes to some effort to try to differentiate their pills from candy, buckyball were going in the opposite direction, it was asking for trouble.
Yeah, he made colors so more kids would eat them. I don't understand the logic here. The colors mean you can do more interesting things with them. Heaven forbid they add value to there product. They do the same thing with tacks.
Also having watched adults play with buckyballs, they often try and make an earring, so I can imagine the following , kid A places a ball either side of their ear "look lets scare mom that I got a peircing" kid B goes one better and places one either side of their tongue"
THE BOX SAID THEY ARE NOT SAFE FOR CHILDREN. So who's fault is it when the parent gives them to the kids?
Given this I understand why they product was banned, they were potentially dangerous
Damn near everything is potentially dangerous. These are no more dangerous than thousands of other things out there. Know how many kids are killed in cars every year? Yet no one does a damn thing to address that problem. It's always just an accident, someone else's fault.
Who is John Galt?
That's why he's in trouble. High strength magnets are not a toy.
They certainly are a toy. By the way, there are other adult toys kids should not have access to --- such as hunting rifles used in hunting sports.
Firecrackers, BDSM gear, high powered laser pointers, racing cars, four wheelers/ATVs, diving boards, dirt bikes, soldering irons, CNC tools, wood carving and arc welding tools, and the list of adult toys/hobbyist products goes on and on; of adult toys that nobody should allow their kids (or kids) unfettered access to, aside from exceptional situations --- very responsible kids who first understand the dangers and are supervised, and known to be very careful and responsible.
The main point was the line is hard to draw when it comes to protecting people. Again, what temperature "should" coffee be served at? What about people who want it hotter so its still hot when they drink it a few minutes later (say stop on the way to work)?
Much like the magnets, what might be safe to some isn't safe for others....
But other toys (Lego for example) come in a box that says not for children under X years old, and nobody expects the Lego to stay in the box or have each individual block marked as unsafe for children. Doesn't that make this a double standard?
Like these? http://www.amazon.com/216-Neodymium-5mm-Sphere-Magnets/dp/B00EI846PK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378002899&sr=8-1&keywords=sphere+magnets
This right here might be the grounds to sue him, did he dissolve the company before the company was held liable for the costs of the recall? If the company runs out of funds that's OK, but if you funnel money out that is not.
Funneling money out after taking on liability would be called fraudulent transfer. I suspect they weren't that dumb. Based on buckyballs' website, their assets were transferred to a liquidating trust, for the purpose of dispensing with the company; therefore they can file their claims against the trust, so no... that's not a good reason to sue the former shareholders: On December 27, 2012 Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC (the "Company") stopped doing business and filed a Certificate of Cancellation with the Secretary of State of Delaware, thereby ceasing to exist pursuant to applicable Delaware law. The MOH Liquidating Trust has been established to deal with and, to the extent they are valid, pay, to the extent assets are available, ....
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
"Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
"Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. It should never be left on an electric burner for longer than 15 minutes because it will begin to develop a burned taste. If the coffee is not to be served immediately after brewing, it should be poured into a warmed, insulated thermos and used within the next 45 minutes."
Sounds like McDonalds was doing it right. I guess the woman that burned herself was unfit to experience coffee. Are you?
Why aren't they banned too?
http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Kylie-Rose-Ricards-220881061.html
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Fucking parents, how do they work?
They don't. Government has spent the better part of 50 years trying to be "co-parents" along with the education system.
Om, nomnomnom...
At my local coffee shop, I frequently (as in: more than several times a week) order a pour-over. I "specify" that the hot water come from the boiling espresso machine instead of the hot tap on the Bunn machine, because the hotter water makes my fresh cup of coffee taste markedly better once it is brewed.
But do I drink it at that temperature? No, at least not very quickly. And do I hold it between my legs while driving? Fuck no.
In other news, I also check the lid on my coffee, wherever it comes from, just to make sure I don't pour the hot liquid all over myself when I take a drink.
And when I sit down to dinner, I look at the food on my fork before I cram it into my mouth. If it looks too hot (due to the copious amounts of steam rolling off), I'll take my time with it so I don't burn my mouth.
And when it's raining and I go outside, I expect to get wet.
And if I ignore a traffic signal when driving, I expect to get run into.
So what temperature can a person withstand without injury? According to a graph, 140 degrees F for less than 5 seconds.
140 degrees is very tepid coffee. 140 degrees is less than the required serving temperature for many hot foods. 140 degrees is not hot enough, yet is still dangerous to the skin.
Maybe we should require that all commercially-sold coffee be iced, and that all floors leading to such commercial coffee dispensaries be coated in thick, padded, skid-resistant rubber floors.
We should also take steak knives out of the steak houses: Someone might hurt themselves. Or at least have them sign a waiver before they're allowed to eat their T-bone (OMG! BONES IN MEAT! SOMEONE MIGHT CHOKE!).
Kid-proof tablet..
There are 216 in my set, they have all been accounted for and are sitting neatly in a 6*6*6 structure, there have been pets, infants, children and drunken people near them, but none have been lost, swallowed or used for lewt sexual acts.
It's all about being responsible and removing the stuff that isn't toys when individual who might think they are toys are around.
any product sold for profit should be generally safe under foreseeable uses.
What - the - FUCK?
That is so far from being true. If it were, it would be impossible to sell motor vehicles of any sort, power tools, ladders, bicycles, kitchen knives, certainly guns, any sort of cleaning fluid etc.
McDonald's knew from a long series of previous lawsuits that normal use of their coffee often resulted in spills especially in cars when served from the drive-thru, and those spills often led to extreme medical emergencies.
Expecting McD's or anyone to stop selling reasonable coffee because idiots keep it in their laps is like expecting power tool sellers to stop selling power tools because idiots refuse to use safety goggles.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Why not yell at the parents for letting their kid ingest random fluids in the street?
Was driving four wheeler around the farm as soon as i could reach the gear peddle. Had a soldering iron i used unsupervised from 7. Did my first weld about the same age and was allowed to use the workshop about that age as well. Been hunting on the farm with .22 since i was 13, mostly because we just didn't have a rifle till then.
Seriously we are so overprotective that we don't let kids grow up until they leave home. Your job as a parent is not to protect mostly. But to prepare. You simply can't protect them, and not from the worst threat they face, themselves.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Take your equivocation and stick it where your head is. You want medical research? Well it has been done: http://www.ameriburn.org/Preven/ScaldInjuryEducator'sGuide.pdf.
The severity of a scald injury depends on the temperature to which the skin is exposed and how long it is exposed. The most common re gulatory standard for the maximum temperature of water delivered by residential water heaters to the tap is 120 degrees Fahrenheit/48 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the skin of adults requires an average of five minutes of exposure for a full thickness burn to occur. When the temperature of a hot liquid is increased to 140 o F/60 o C it takes only five seconds or less for a serious burn to occur 1 . Coffee, tea, hot chocolate and other hot beverages are usually served at 160 to 180 o F /71-82
o
C, resulting in
almost instantaneous burns that will require surgery. Since immediate removal of the hot
liquid from the skin may lessen severity, splash and spill burns may not be as deep as burns
suffered in a bathtub.
The main point was the line is hard to draw when it comes to protecting people. Again, what temperature "should" coffee be served at? What about people who want it hotter so its still hot when they drink it a few minutes later (say stop on the way to work)?
Much like the magnets, what might be safe to some isn't safe for others....
The main point is, people need to be responsible for themselves, it's not up to others to protect them, if they are old enough to be considered adults. It's up to a parent to protect their children, not up to someone else, unless the child is in an other's care for a time, such as at school, day care, camp.
The point is, that it's a person's OWN responsibility to protect themselves and their own family's. It's not a company's responsibility to worry about how someone eats or drinks what they serve.
When is a person expected to check if food or drink is too hot. When do people take personal responsibility for their own safety and actions, and stop blaming others for their own carelessness?
When is it a person's responsibility that a product that they bought is unsafe for children in their care?
When do we take back what is ours to begin with, our ability to make decisions on how to raise and care for our own children?
If you use terms like "crotch fruit" that's usually a sign that you felt your argument can't stand on its own and needed emotional appeal for the "har har look how tough my callousness makes me" -crowd. The interesting question, then, is why make said argument in the first place? Vested interests? Psychological problems? Trolling?
That's pretty funny and quite ironic. You don't even try to refute my weak (as you claim) arguments but instead attack my choice of words.
Also, drain cleaner usually comes in bottles with safety caps, presumably because manufacturers of dangerous chemicals think they might be held responsible for not taking reasonable precautions.
Unless this was an attempt. I chose one example. Come on stretch your mind a little bit. Look around the room you're sitting in. You will see dozens of things in that room that could potentially cause harm to kids if left unattended. Far more kids are hurt and even killed by TVs than by buckyballs. Tacks are made in pretty candy colors and left laying all over the place. And don't get me started on the number of people (including kids) killed and maimed in cars. How come no one is trying to ban any of those?
And yes I used strong words. Using strong words only lessens an argument for the weak minded. That is, unless of course the strong words are the only argument...*looks at first paragraph above*...Hmmm. I used strong words to emphasize the idiocy of claiming anything that hurts you kid is someone else's responsibility. Giving a product clearly labeled as not for kids to your kid and then blaming whoever made the product when the kid gets hurt is asinine (Uh oh. There's those strong words again).
Who is John Galt?
Not everyone is lucky enough to have responsible parents, and the government has a responsibility to protect them. ....
The whole "nanny state" thing is getting pretty tired. You can be individually responsible while still have help from the state.
If it's necessary, however let us take a look at some examples. Such as the kid who drew a picture of a gun, that was a toy, that his father used to scare monsters away at night. Where the school called child services and took the kids. Or where child services has tried and in some cases successfully to force parents to quit their jobs, and go on welfare to take care of their kids. Or even cases where the kids are handed away from a responsible father, and to an irresponsible mother. Or where hearsay is taken as factual evidence.
Perhaps, just perhaps the state has run amok. And I haven't even started on things in the US such as seizing kids from parents who are responsible gun owners...because there were guns in the house.
Om, nomnomnom...