Kodak wins a billion dollar lawsuit

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Mike Henley, Oct 3, 2004.

  1. Mike Henley

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Basicly, you are dead wrong here. What you are saying is the equvalent
    to saying that everybody stepping into their bathroom should expect to
    be electrocuted when taking a shower.
     
    Sander Vesik, Oct 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    " It is absolutely sad to see that a company that develops,
    implements, and pushes forward a field such as computing, and thefore
    society, can be sued by a company that created a vaguely similar idea
    that it abandoned because of their lack of vision.

    It's far, far worse than that... Kodak didn't even create the idea...
    merely bought it from a company that went belly up years ago... "

    Well, just quoting a couple of people. But anyhow, society should
    really find a way to prevent this patent squatting and extortion.
     
    Mike Henley, Oct 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike Henley

    Sander Vesik Guest

    The problem is that you fail to realise that there is a difference
    between "hot" and "hot" and that the coffee in question was not
    "hot" in the sense of what people are used to receiving.

    Do you actually know the temprature of teh coffee in question?
     
    Sander Vesik, Oct 8, 2004
  4. Mike Henley

    Mike Guest

    No Sander, Bill is not dead wrong, your analogy is dead wrong.
    While people may realize they might slip in the tub they don't expect to be
    electrocuted.
    We are talking about hot coffee not iced coffee and one would expect that
    when you are handed a cup of coffee it will be hot *unless* you ordered
    *iced* coffee.
     
    Mike, Oct 8, 2004
  5. Mike Henley

    Mike Guest

    The problem is *not* that I "fail to realise that there is a difference
    between "hot" and "hot"", I *know* there is a difference.
    *Which* is why I am *damn careful* when I get that *hot* cup of coffee no
    matter where I have purchased it. People need to take *some* responsibility
    for their own safety
    No I do not that case was years ago. However I will say this again, Most*
    anyone who purchases coffee *knows* it will be hot, hell even I'm not
    dumb enough to put a cup of *hot* coffee between my legs.

    Want to answer this question? By the way at what temprature do you consider
    "safe", that will not burn you?
     
    Mike, Oct 8, 2004
  6. Mike Henley

    Alan Browne Guest

    Mike Henley wrote:

    Jesus! It does not matter that they bought the IP. The fact is they BOUGHT the
    IP. Tell ya what... I'm taking over your house and your cars today and I don't
    care that you bought them. I want them and I'm taking them.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 8, 2004
  7. Mike Henley

    Bruce Murphy Guest

    Frankly, if the US didn't have such a stupid bloody patent system, this
    never would have happened.

    B>
     
    Bruce Murphy, Oct 8, 2004
  8. Really? - You really think that those two things are comparable? Why is it
    that I heat my coffee up to (and sometimes over) boiling hot in my microwave
    oven every morning of my life? And why would I not think that my local
    coffee shop might do the same? Do you commonly get electrocuted in your
    shower? - I think not.....This discussion is getting very tiresome. You may
    continue to sue your local shopkeeper for such things. I will not. I worked
    all of my life for my money, and don't expect to get more by stealing from
    someone else. I sleep very well at night as a result. When I depart from
    this world, I will know that I paid my own way for every minute I spent in
    it..........
     
    William Graham, Oct 8, 2004
  9. I think that most people heat their coffee in their own microwave oven every
    morning as I do, and they expect it to be boiling hot when they fish it out
    of that oven, and treat it accordingly unless and until they find that it is
    cooler than that. If those same people expect that their local restaurant
    will do any better, then they are slightly crazy, and should suffer for
    their ignorance. I certainly don't expect that they should be paid 400 grand
    for that ignorance, and I don't expect that millions and millions of people
    all across this country should have to be served insipid, lukewarm coffee
    for the rest of time because of that ignorance on the part of one person and
    9 other idiots on a jury......but you may "expect" what you please.........
     
    William Graham, Oct 8, 2004
  10. Mike Henley

    ThomasH Guest

    Michael, I have a question:

    Isn't this so that the case Selden/Ford is in fact similar to
    the case Kodak(Wang)/Sun because Wang never really "build" and
    sold anything containing these supposedly so unique "inventions,"
    which are in my eyes plain everydays algorithms to deal with
    semantics of objects during compilation and in the run-time
    system. Everybody of us while working on such technical dilemma
    would be devising and writing a system working like that in
    one of the billions of possible specific ways. We once wrote
    a space station emulator capable of modeling catastrophe
    scenarios (all incl. language, compiler, run time system.)
    And what? I claim I "used" some of the Wang's patented things
    even before they filed for the patent. We produced software
    which flies in the space, they produced "a patent."

    You have mentioned the case of:

    [...
    In a futile attempt to drag this on topic, how different is
    this from the business model of www.siliconfilm.com?
    ...]

    Lets support the effort to return to photography: What is
    than their business model? They failed to deliver but claim
    now royalties from everybody who makes a digital back to a
    35mm or MF camera?
    True enough.

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Oct 8, 2004
  11. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    The harmed individual is an 81 year old lady. It can be reasonably
    assumed that her handling a scalding hot cup of coffee is a high risk
    situation. I know that in some care settings, such as homes of the
    elderly and the mentally compromised, a lot of expenses go into making
    sure that what looks like an ordinary kitchen is made as safe as
    possible, and that includes both structural or concrete adjustments,
    and written procedures that, believe it or not, even often detail in
    length a set of policies and procedures (for carers, not the cared
    for, though for as it relates to the cared for) for the use of
    something as simple and "commonsense" as, for example, an ordinary
    kettle (usually there'd be a thick bound volume of such policies and
    procedures on the shelf - its presence there is to ensure that if
    someone doesn't follow the rules or procedures then they are held
    responsible, because they should be made aware of its existence and
    able to refer to it when needed, after initial training of course,
    rather than management being blamed - this practice adheres to the
    managerial concept of "transfer of responsiblity"... I personally
    think it's a misnomer because it's most often practiced as a "transfer
    of blame").

    In many situations, that involve more than one party, responsibility
    is shared, after all, responsibility is response-ability. So if it
    could be seen that the person could've responded and chose not to,
    then they are responsible. This is why, say, if you could respond to
    someone who is in a critical situation, who may suffer lethal or
    catastrophically injurious consequences if they don't receive
    assistance, eventhough it was really none of your business originally,
    and you don't, you may be held responsible. (one of the major
    disadvantages of becoming certified in first-aid is that you become
    legally responsibly, so that, say, someone was to fall in the street
    with a fit or a heart attack and a passerby with no training would try
    to help them, and they die, then the passerby would oftentimes be
    generaously thanked for their good actions, even if they
    unintentionally contributed to the death. But if you, the person
    certified in first-aid, were to try to help them, and the person dies,
    and it was found out that you had recieved first aid training, then
    you could find yourself on the receiving end of an investigation into
    what you did exactly and how you did it, and if found that a part of
    your application of the procedure was inapropriate or inadequate, then
    you could be held responsible for their death. That's why you often
    find that many, if not all, medical institutions would strongly advise
    their staff against the heroics of trying to save people on the
    streets - outside of their working hours of course - and explicitly
    tell them not to, and many medical professionals would generally avoid
    such situations and walk the other way, as oftentimes, no good deed
    goes unpunished... again, this is laregly caused by the rabid
    emergence of the industry of personal injury litigation, those
    companies that advertise "if you had an accident call this number" on
    TV and in print, and in the business section you'd occasionally read
    that one of them makes tens of millions in money, I'd guess that much
    of it comes at a cost to to society. This is compounded by a blame
    culture, where whenever something happens people seem to rush to the
    question of "who's to blame, someone's gotta be to blame", often
    leading to a sensational scapegoating of an individual and then
    closing of the matter with no real look into the problem and change in
    the system, and a quickbuck culture, where it's now increasingly
    acceptable to get substantial sums of money without the production of
    something of value or use to others.)

    So, in a nutshell, if McDonald's could've altered the temperature of
    the coffee to make it safer, and they didn't, then it can be
    reasonably argued they're responsible.
     
    Mike Henley, Oct 9, 2004
  12. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    Most people assume they are buying a drink to ingest, not a skin
    liquifying agent. I have been in McDonald's at times in the past and I
    recall once being sat and feeling immensely unsettled when a young
    girl (young means late teens or early twenties) carrying a cup of
    coffee was negotiating her way between crowded chairs, passing with
    some struggle with that visibly-hot, just-served cup over my head
    while her sight and attention were engaged on one of the loud,
    jestering, fratboy-type male companions at the table she was
    energetically making her way back to. Had that coffee been spilt over
    the back of my neck I definitely don't want it to be scalding.

    I'm sure a corporation the size of McDonald's can consult a
    professional with expertise, maybe a dermatologist, on what a safe
    temperature for the coffee might be.
     
    Mike Henley, Oct 9, 2004
  13. Mike Henley

    Mike Guest

    Most people assume they are buying a drink to ingest, not a skin
    liquifying agent. I have been in McDonald's at times in the past and I
    recall once being sat and feeling immensely unsettled when a young
    girl (young means late teens or early twenties) carrying a cup of
    coffee was negotiating her way between crowded chairs, passing with
    some struggle with that visibly-hot, just-served cup over my head
    while her sight and attention were engaged on one of the loud,
    jestering, fratboy-type male companions at the table she was
    energetically making her way back to. Had that coffee been spilt over
    the back of my neck I definitely don't want it to be scalding.

    I'm sure a corporation the size of McDonald's can consult a
    professional with expertise, maybe a dermatologist, on what a safe
    temperature for the coffee might be.[/QUOTE]

    Mike what happened in a McDonald's or in your life in general that caused
    you to believe that everyone else is 100% responsible for "your" safety? If
    you are this concerned about your safety in a McDonald's don't go in, use
    the drive thru window, oh wait that won't work either. The person working
    the drive thru window could trip and throw the coffee thru her window, thru
    your car window and on to you.
    Your assume a certain amount of risk in life, you will have a greater degree
    of control over some risk than others. Do you believe that when you fly you
    have a chance of dying?

    I believe most everyone is able in some fashion to asses risks for
    themselves, apparently you are not.
    One last time Mike, at what temperature do you consider "safe", that will
    not burn
    you?
     
    Mike, Oct 9, 2004
  14. Fresh brewed and scalding hot, yes, boiling no.
    You actually expect people to take responsibility for their own
    actions? That would probably be considered cruel and unusual
    punishment. <LOL> You probably wouldn't even reward stupidity either.

    I used to purchase coffee Mickey D's in the mornings, but after they
    lowered the temperature I doubt it unsatisfactory and have never
    purchased any since. OTOH I quit drinking coffee a couple years back
    so I don't miss it.

    Maybe I could get a court case in that their lowering the temperature
    deprived me of the enjoyment of a good cup of coffee in the mornings
    and the trauma caused me to give it up altogether creating a drop in
    the demand for coffee. I haven't worked since so maybe I could add
    that. Of course having retired shouldn't have any bearing on the not
    having worked.

    BTW, some of those outlets still serve *hot* coffee around here.
    However it comes with a verbal warning that it is very hot and to not
    spill it, or at least they did a couple years back. OTOH I did run
    into some where the coffee was only luke warm. I took it back.

    Roger (I love retirement) Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
    (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
    www.rogerhalstead.com
     
    Roger Halstead, Oct 9, 2004
  15. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    Or they could've ***simply*** served it an an appropriate temperature
    for the features of the containter they served it in. How difficult
    would it have been to have adjusted the temperature?

    The other chain, and even I, knew what the cups were for and how they
    should be used. Why didn't they?

    For example, hypothetically speaking, let's assume that last year some
    upstart tyres company introduced to the market tyres with special
    proprties that make them much safer in sleet and snow, that you don't
    have to drive any differently in those conditions at all, and you can
    just drive as you would've on a dry road. Those tyres come in a
    distinctive purple color (tyres are black, right?), and they require a
    certain adjustment in the inner working of the car to perform their
    function (we're talking hypothetical so let's not get too specific
    about the real inner workings of a car). Some car manufacuturer that
    keeps its customers happy introduced these tyres in their cars - with
    the necessary adjustment to how they make the car, of course - and
    they're selling very nicely and people love them. Some other car
    manufacturer that trails in the market, and generally imitates what
    the market leader does (there are many of those "me too" businesses),
    decided to introduce those tyres in their cars too, since, after all,
    they really do look funky those purple tyres and consumers seem to
    like them. I usually buy my cars from the market leader (I don't buy a
    car everyday, but let's, since we're hypothetical, assume that I buy
    (rent?) a car every weekday and use it to get me home), and I have
    been in many sleet and snow conditions but, thanks to the great tyres,
    was fully in control and became accustomed to the idea that those when
    driving a car using those sleet-and-snow purple tyres I would drive
    one just like I would on any dry road and had no problems whatsoever.
    Let's now assume that this one time I was in another town on a
    saturday morning so I got a car from a rival chain, the imitators, and
    it had those new funky-loooking purple tyres I had only seen at the
    other place and knew they were for sleet and snow, assume that on the
    way home I encountered a storm, and lots of sleet and snow, and
    thinking that I had sleet and snow tyres, did not alter my driving,
    but to my shock and horror the car skids off madly and I have a bad
    accident and break my spine and pelvis. Then, after the fact, it
    becomes obvious to me that they only fitted the tyres, the
    funky-looking purple tyres, but did not make the necessary adjustment
    to how the car works.

    You see, had I been driving with ordinary black tyres I would've
    slowed down and been very careful in sleet and snow, but my
    expectations were shifted, and I assumed a car-maker knew those tyres
    are for sleet and snow and not just 'cos they look purple and funky
    and people seem to like them. I, and I'm not a car maker, knew what
    they were for, why shouldn't they?! Either they were stupid and
    oblivious to the function of the tyres, or they knew what they were
    for but didn't bother implement the internal adjustment.

    They could argue that I should've driven very carefully in sleet and
    snow, after all, it's friggin obvious that you should drive very
    carefully in sleet and snow, everyone knows that!, or they could argue
    that their other customers (who are only accustomed to black tyres,
    and don't know what the purple tyres are for other than them looking
    funky) continue to drive normally (as they would for black tyres, very
    carefully in sleet and snow) and don't have problems (in sleet and
    snow).

    You see?
     
    Mike Henley, Oct 9, 2004
  16. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest


    Mike, we can speculate all we want, but a Billion-dollar corporation
    the size of McDonald's that serves millions (tens or hundreds of
    millions even?) of people should be able to afford to consult a
    dermatologist (or the relevant experts) on what is a safe temperature
    for the coffee they serve for the purpose of consuming it within a set
    period (half an hour? they should do a research and find out how long
    it takes the majority of their customers to finish the coffee and that
    bell curve would be the set period, let's say half an hour) and what
    packaging would be suitable for serving it that would be suitable for
    this purpose. Because they make billions then they have the ability to
    respond and because they serve millions then it's almost statistically
    certain that accidents will happen.
     
    Mike Henley, Oct 9, 2004
  17. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    Alan, I can't see the rest of your post in google groups. So forgive
    if i didn't reply or can't reply to the rest of it. But let's talk
    this point and consider it.

    I'm not expert on the patent system but 4 years ago I was involved in
    filing a patent and read about it at length and had meetings with
    patent experts. It comes down to this, what is the purpose of the
    patent legislation? After all, legislations are regulations and all
    regulations do (should) have a purpose for introducing and maintaining
    them. From what I remember patents work like this... it's like a
    deal/agreement/contract between the public and the patentee, you tell
    us (us, the public) how to do something, in enough detail and clarity
    that any one of us who is reasonably skilled in the art and follow
    your description would be able to do it, provided of course that it's
    useful, novel and not obvious to us, and we assure you that for a
    certain period of time you will have the exclusive rights to enjoy the
    *reasonable* rewards of us using it (see, if it's useful it has to be
    used, that's why during the set period we will not acknowledge its
    same revelation by others, who may not have read your expose, on the
    basis that we have made a deal already to use it from you and we will
    rely on you honoring your part of the deal in not only telling us how
    to do it but also bringing it to our use at a reasonable reward -
    that's why if you decide to sleep on it, thereby denying us its use,
    it or price it at an arbitrary and unreasonble cost to us that it's
    made practically useless, then the patent can be challenged because
    you did not honor the agreement/deal/contract). Enriching the
    literature of the patent records, being a public knowledge resrource
    that anyone can access, and provided they're reasonably skilled in the
    art they can follow what is instructed in a given patent and be able
    to do the thing patented, is essentially a concrete form of the
    purpose of the patent system. Now it has become fashionable to think
    that patents primarily are to protect investment, but this capitalist
    view is historically, and philosophically in terms of the original
    purpose, incorrect, wholly incorrect, and is a blatant misuse of the
    patent reguation.
     
    Mike Henley, Oct 9, 2004
  18. Mike Henley

    Mike Guest

    When I asked "By the way at what temperature do you consider "safe", that
    will not burn you?"
    I was asking for YOUR opinion, which it would seem you don't feel confident
    in giving.

    Mike you come across like so many people who feel the need for cradle to
    grave protection and attempt to get it by shifting *all* responsibility to
    someone else.
    Like I have said before, checking to see how *hot* the coffee or tea is, is
    not rocket science but *common sense*.
     
    Mike, Oct 9, 2004
  19. I don't know. Wang's failure was not one of technologic
    innovation. They did a lot of nifty stuff which no one
    saw because they took arms against a tide of PC's and by
    so doing, ended themselves.

    At the end, Wang was demoing some very nice image processing
    technology, which could well have been object based.
    Supposedly, they got a prototype working, which is all that's
    necessary to get a patent. But I'll agree that they never
    got to the point of commercial viability.

    I think their business model was to sell out to the highest
    bidder, but who knows what the new organization is doing?

    Sorry to be so brief, I'm taking a break from shooting
    North of Saratoga.

    Mike B.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Oct 9, 2004
  20. The harmed individual is an 81 year old lady. It can be reasonably
    assumed that her handling a scalding hot cup of coffee is a high risk
    situation. I know that in some care settings, such as homes of the
    elderly and the mentally compromised, a lot of expenses go into making
    sure that what looks like an ordinary kitchen is made as safe as
    possible, and that includes both structural or concrete adjustments,
    and written procedures that, believe it or not, even often detail in
    length a set of policies and procedures (for carers, not the cared
    for, though for as it relates to the cared for) for the use of
    something as simple and "commonsense" as, for example, an ordinary
    kettle (usually there'd be a thick bound volume of such policies and
    procedures on the shelf - its presence there is to ensure that if
    someone doesn't follow the rules or procedures then they are held
    responsible, because they should be made aware of its existence and
    able to refer to it when needed, after initial training of course,
    rather than management being blamed - this practice adheres to the
    managerial concept of "transfer of responsiblity"... I personally
    think it's a misnomer because it's most often practiced as a "transfer
    of blame").

    In many situations, that involve more than one party, responsibility
    is shared, after all, responsibility is response-ability. So if it
    could be seen that the person could've responded and chose not to,
    then they are responsible. This is why, say, if you could respond to
    someone who is in a critical situation, who may suffer lethal or
    catastrophically injurious consequences if they don't receive
    assistance, eventhough it was really none of your business originally,
    and you don't, you may be held responsible. (one of the major
    disadvantages of becoming certified in first-aid is that you become
    legally responsibly, so that, say, someone was to fall in the street
    with a fit or a heart attack and a passerby with no training would try
    to help them, and they die, then the passerby would oftentimes be
    generaously thanked for their good actions, even if they
    unintentionally contributed to the death. But if you, the person
    certified in first-aid, were to try to help them, and the person dies,
    and it was found out that you had recieved first aid training, then
    you could find yourself on the receiving end of an investigation into
    what you did exactly and how you did it, and if found that a part of
    your application of the procedure was inapropriate or inadequate, then
    you could be held responsible for their death. That's why you often
    find that many, if not all, medical institutions would strongly advise
    their staff against the heroics of trying to save people on the
    streets - outside of their working hours of course - and explicitly
    tell them not to, and many medical professionals would generally avoid
    such situations and walk the other way, as oftentimes, no good deed
    goes unpunished... again, this is laregly caused by the rabid
    emergence of the industry of personal injury litigation, those
    companies that advertise "if you had an accident call this number" on
    TV and in print, and in the business section you'd occasionally read
    that one of them makes tens of millions in money, I'd guess that much
    of it comes at a cost to to society. This is compounded by a blame
    culture, where whenever something happens people seem to rush to the
    question of "who's to blame, someone's gotta be to blame", often
    leading to a sensational scapegoating of an individual and then
    closing of the matter with no real look into the problem and change in
    the system, and a quickbuck culture, where it's now increasingly
    acceptable to get substantial sums of money without the production of
    something of value or use to others.)

    So, in a nutshell, if McDonald's could've altered the temperature of
    the coffee to make it safer, and they didn't, then it can be
    reasonably argued they're responsible.[/QUOTE]

    Yes.....I worked on product liability cases for an engineering firm, so I
    know what's going on in that arena.....But that doesn't mean I agree with
    the disposition of this case. This woman was not in an old folks home. She
    was out on the street, wandering around by herself. It is entirely
    unreasonable for anyone to expect a McDonalds clerk to be able to evaluate
    the fact that someone is: 1. Over any given age. 2. Incompetent as a result
    of that age. 3. Unable to handle a cup of hot coffee as a result of that
    incompetence. 4. Responsible for the disposition of the food after it leaves
    his counter.
    As I said, it is possible that McDonalds might transfer some of the
    "blame" to the manufacturer of the coffee machine that (presumably) kept the
    coffee, "too hot". but I maintain that anything short of live steam is not
    too hot when it comes to coffee. I cook my coffee to boiling frequently in
    my own microwave oven, and I expect to get it that way when I order it at
    any restaurant. After all, the clerk poured it into a cup, and handed it to
    her......And then, she carried it out to her car, (which implies that she
    was competent enough to drive) and sat in the car and put it between her
    legs. How hot could it be at that point? When I do that, the coffee is
    usually too cold for me to enjoy by that time.
    I think the court's decision was a bad one. And for sure, the award of
    over 400 grand was ridiculous. And I think it sets a very bad precedent for
    a court to reward someone for being that stupid. It teaches people that they
    are not only not required to take care of themselves, but they can receive a
    large reward for their own incompetence. And furthermore, it raises
    everyone's insurance rates, and discourages other enterprising people from
    going into business. It has exactly the opposite effect of what our
    government is trying to do by decreasing taxes for the entrepreneur........
     
    William Graham, Oct 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.