Microchip looses the plot ?

In article <43011608$0$21316$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Joe Butler
<ffffh.no.spam@hotmail-spammers-paradise.com> writes
>OK, now that I've done a search, I withdraw the statement about the woman.
>

Why?  
That case is an urban myth. Can you put the reality in a nutshell here
to save the rest of us having to search for it?


>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
>news:hc42g1587jbqpipclm1pr6pppv23cn4202@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:31:50 +0100, "Joe Butler"
>> <ffffh.no.spam@hotmail-spammers-paradise.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>> >If American courts allow people that are stupic enough to burn themselves
>> >with hot coffee to sue the vendor...
>> ><snip>
>>
>> If you knew the details of the case, you wouldn't have used this
>> example to make your point.
>>
>> Jon
>
>

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <t4c2g1le4fooprkcfib2ocv6g17f1j6t4k@4ax.com>, boB Gudgel
<boB@?.?> writes
>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:11:18 -0700, Scott Moore
><samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:
>
>>Joe Butler wrote:
>>
>>> Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?
>>> 
>>> Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
>>> out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
>>> patents should be removed from their position?
>>> 
>>> Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of
>>> dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have?
>>> If not, it should be.
>>> 
>>
>>Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and
>>maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds
>>to run other government functions. If the patent office issues a "bad"
>>patent, such as two patents that clearly duplicate each other (which
>>has occurred often), not only does it take years before such patents
>>are ruled invalid, but the USPO suffers no penalties for issuing such
>>patents. They don't even have to refund fees charged for the invalidated
>>patent.
>>
>>Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?
>
>
>Right on !    The patent system is definately broken.   It's good for
>the patent office and the government monetarily, but bad for us
>who have to prove our competition wrong to make them go away
>and stop hounding us.  (which I've done before)
>
>BTW, does the patent examiner really look for prior art these days ?
>I think that ~maybe~ they look at ~some~ patents, but I'm not sure
>about prior art and published papers etc...
>
>boB
>
>

As this is an international NG please specify which PO and government
you refer to.  The UK office AFAIK works very differently to the US one.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:03:28 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In article <43011608$0$21316$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Joe Butler
><ffffh.no.spam@hotmail-spammers-paradise.com> writes
>>OK, now that I've done a search, I withdraw the statement about the woman.
>>
>
>Why?  
>That case is an urban myth. Can you put the reality in a nutshell here
>to save the rest of us having to search for it?

Sigh.  Google is your friend.

"mcdonalds coffee lawsuit" turned up http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
(McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit) as the first hit.  From
that page:

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.

Regards,

                               -=Dave
-- 
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:05:25 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In article <t4c2g1le4fooprkcfib2ocv6g17f1j6t4k@4ax.com>, boB Gudgel
><boB@?.?> writes
>>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:11:18 -0700, Scott Moore
>><samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:
[...]
>>>Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and
>>>maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds
[...]
>>>Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?
>>
>>
>>Right on !    The patent system is definately broken.   It's good for
>>the patent office and the government monetarily, but bad for us
>>who have to prove our competition wrong to make them go away
>>and stop hounding us.  (which I've done before)
>>
[...]
>
>As this is an international NG please specify which PO and government
>you refer to.  The UK office AFAIK works very differently to the US one.

As far as I know the UK office doesn't go by the moniker USPO either.

Regards,

                               -=Dave
-- 
Change is inevitable, progress is not.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:34:45 GMT, iddw@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen)
wrote:

><snip>
>Sigh.  Google is your friend.
>
>"mcdonalds coffee lawsuit" turned up http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
>(McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit) as the first hit.  From
>that page:
>
>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.
><snip>

I'll add that McDonalds had already (and within the last year, if I
recall) hired someone (either directly, or through their investigating
attorney's office) to run around and sample coffee temperatures in the
same local area (this wasn't their first such case there.)  That
investigator's report became a part of this case and it supported the
plaintiff's own similar investigations.  But more to the point, it
showed that these 15-20 degree differences in coffee temperatures,
other vendors compared to McDonald's, weren't news to McDonalds
management.

Medical specialists pointed out that this difference in temperature is
what goes from "3rd degree burns after many minutes of contact" to
"3rd degree burns in a few seconds of contact."  In other words, it
makes the difference between whether someone has a chance to do
something about it, or not.

Also, beyond the quality assurance manager testimony about being aware
of the risks, there was a memo I believe that surfaced showing that
the purpose of the higher temperature was _saving money_ on the coffee
beans consumed.  They could get a few more cups out of it with the
higher temperatures they used.

In short, they willfully chose to expose people to a much higher risk
for a slight profit advantage and they did so despite having had past
serious events brought to their attention -- these past events
spanning back some 10 years, if I recall.

Even all that, I suppose, wouldn't necessarily mean that they should
be held responsible -- if it were the case that McDonalds in that area
was behaving like other vendors.  If it were the case that their
behavior was "normal practice," then it is somewhat possible that the
burden would have shifted to the buyers, if it were normal practice
and so many people so regularly managed to safely handle the dangerous
products.  But their behavior was way out of the bounds of other
companies selling similar products.  It was unique.

Put all this together and there are few cases with an outcome so
clearly correct as this one.

It's not just a bad example of a court case gone awry.  It's one of
the few worst possible examples of that.  It's actually a clear case
of why people NEED to have access to the courts.

Jon

On 2005-08-16, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Right on !    The patent system is definately broken.   It's good for
>>>the patent office and the government monetarily, but bad for us
>>>who have to prove our competition wrong to make them go away
>>>and stop hounding us.  (which I've done before)
>>>
> [...]
>>
>>As this is an international NG please specify which PO and government
>>you refer to.  The UK office AFAIK works very differently to the US one.
>
> As far as I know the UK office doesn't go by the moniker USPO either.

Neither does the one in the US.  It's the USPTO: http://www.uspto.gov/

USPO _was_ the United States Post Office.  They changed their
name back a while back to the United States Postal Service
(USPS).

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  The FALAFEL SANDWICH
                                  at               lands on my HEAD and I
                               visi.com            become a VEGETARIAN...

boB Gudgel wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:11:18 -0700, Scott Moore
> <samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Joe Butler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't you think it makes the Patent Office look like clueless muppets?
>>>
>>>Shouldn't there be some system in place, such as "3-strikes and you're
>>>out" - where any patent clerk that achieves 3 successfully-challenged
>>>patents should be removed from their position?
>>>
>>>Is it possible to sue the Patent Office for damages due to the issuing of
>>>dumb patents and the negative publicity a 'stupid' patent claim can have?
>>>If not, it should be.
>>>
>>
>>Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and
>>maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds
>>to run other government functions. If the patent office issues a "bad"
>>patent, such as two patents that clearly duplicate each other (which
>>has occurred often), not only does it take years before such patents
>>are ruled invalid, but the USPO suffers no penalties for issuing such
>>patents. They don't even have to refund fees charged for the invalidated
>>patent.
>>
>>Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?
> 
> 
> 
> Right on !    The patent system is definately broken.   It's good for
> the patent office and the government monetarily, but bad for us
> who have to prove our competition wrong to make them go away
> and stop hounding us.  (which I've done before)
> 
> BTW, does the patent examiner really look for prior art these days ?
> I think that ~maybe~ they look at ~some~ patents, but I'm not sure
> about prior art and published papers etc...
> 
> boB
> 

From what I have seen, patent examiners do a good job. Remember Einstein
was a patent examiner. The problem is that engineering patent examiners
are not paid as much as engineers in the general economy, and are generally
not given enough leeway to adequately research the claims.

I buy coffee from Mcdonald's. In fact, thats about all I buy from them,
their food is atrocious. I figured out rapidly that their coffee is
extraordinarily hot. I never attributed it to anything other than
that Mcdonalds was trying to overcome the typical issue with fast food
restaurants that the coffee temperature comes to you all over the map,
from lukewarm to hot. I think the first time I got it, a slightly burned
tounge was all that I needed to realize that the coffee needed to sit
in the cup holder of the car while it cooled off.

This lady was handling hot coffee while driving a car. Why didn't she also
sue the car company for not having a warning on the dashboard not to
handle food while driving ?

The upshot of the case is that fast food outlets have warnings on coffee
cups that "the contents may be hot", something any moron could have
figured out. We have warnings on ladders not to place them on unstable
ground because some idiot placed one on cowshit then fell off the ladder.
We have warnings on the edge of lawnmowers because some mental zero
picked one up while running and tried to use it as a hedge trimmer
(these are all true cases). We have warnings not to hang yourself with
bathroom towels, eat packing materials, tie plastic bags over your
head, sniff the contents of hair spray, and other goodies that should,
by rights be left unlabeled so as to advance the good works of Darwinisim
in the world.

All of these warnings are useful. However, the lawyers in America
are advancing a nanny state while lining their pockets and creating
a contest winner mentality in the court system.

What is needed is a warning label on lawyers that says "warning, use
of contents may cause severe financial deprivation".

Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:03:28 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <43011608$0$21316$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Joe Butler
>><ffffh.no.spam@hotmail-spammers-paradise.com> writes
>>
>>>OK, now that I've done a search, I withdraw the statement about the woman.
>>>
>>
>>Why?  
>>That case is an urban myth. Can you put the reality in a nutshell here
>>to save the rest of us having to search for it?
> 
> 
> Sigh.  Google is your friend.
> 
> "mcdonalds coffee lawsuit" turned up http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
> (McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit) as the first hit.  From
> that page:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>                                -=Dave

Good one.

Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:05:25 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <t4c2g1le4fooprkcfib2ocv6g17f1j6t4k@4ax.com>, boB Gudgel
>><boB@?.?> writes
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:11:18 -0700, Scott Moore
>>><samiamsansspam@Sun.COM> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>Let's see. The patent office makes lots of money on issuing patents and
>>>>maintaining them, so much so that congress is tapping the USPO for funds
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?
>>>
>>>
>>>Right on !    The patent system is definately broken.   It's good for
>>>the patent office and the government monetarily, but bad for us
>>>who have to prove our competition wrong to make them go away
>>>and stop hounding us.  (which I've done before)
>>>
> 
> [...]
> 
>>As this is an international NG please specify which PO and government
>>you refer to.  The UK office AFAIK works very differently to the US one.
> 
> 
> As far as I know the UK office doesn't go by the moniker USPO either.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>                                -=Dave

Opps.

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2005-08-16, Dave Hansen <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>>Now, WHY should the USPO care about bad patents ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Right on !    The patent system is definately broken.   It's good for
>>>>the patent office and the government monetarily, but bad for us
>>>>who have to prove our competition wrong to make them go away
>>>>and stop hounding us.  (which I've done before)
>>>>
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>As this is an international NG please specify which PO and government
>>>you refer to.  The UK office AFAIK works very differently to the US one.
>>
>>As far as I know the UK office doesn't go by the moniker USPO either.
> 
> 
> Neither does the one in the US.  It's the USPTO: http://www.uspto.gov/
> 
> USPO _was_ the United States Post Office.  They changed their
> name back a while back to the United States Postal Service
> (USPS).
>