4 ms·

> If I'm Ford, I surely would have triple checked every IP angle before putting a new technology in every single vehicle I make. This disregards the strategy o

> If I'm Ford, I surely would have triple checked every IP angle before putting a new technology in every single vehicle I make. This disregards the strategy of actively predicting the risk of infringing a patent and maximizing profit even after damages are considered. Your approach is the expectation. The reality is quite a bit darker.

jjoonathan 8y ago
Here's the strategy: you can't take a piss without breaking a patent or ten, so don't even bother checking them. Let the lawyers do their best to fend off the scavengers and consider it a cost of doing business.
- toss1 8y ago
  Which is kind of what Ford did decades ago with the Pinto fuel tank & rear end design; not with patents, but with injuries & deaths. Kind of backfired. After several dozen people burned to death in what should have been unremarkable rear-end collisions, it was revealed that Ford had deliberately declined to implement redesigns for safety in favor of just handling the claims because they estimated the costs would be lower (to pay claims vs implement redesign). The subsequent cases set several precedents & provoked reforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Similarities between the two end up at "businesses write stuff off as costs of doing business instead of dealing with them up front". One can't just transfer moral judgment from one to the other.
    - toss1 8y ago
      I made no claim that there was any more link than dealing with it as a cost-benefit calculation instead of properly sorting the problem up front. I was not implying any moral judgement transfer, only the similarity of bad results of failing to deal with issues up front.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    Too bad the videos were staged. While not a great design, it was not the disaster you proport. 2 tv shows were found to have faked fires. Fake news is not new.
    - toss1 8y ago
      You are thinking of a different incident with their Trucks in the 2000s, not the Pinto issue from the 1970s/80s. Failure to get accurate information before spouting off is apparently also not new.

jjoonathan 8y ago

Here's the strategy: you can't take a piss without breaking a patent or ten, so don't even bother checking them. Let the lawyers do their best to fend off the scavengers and consider it a cost of doing business.

toss1 8y ago
Which is kind of what Ford did decades ago with the Pinto fuel tank & rear end design; not with patents, but with injuries & deaths. Kind of backfired. After several dozen people burned to death in what should have been unremarkable rear-end collisions, it was revealed that Ford had deliberately declined to implement redesigns for safety in favor of just handling the claims because they estimated the costs would be lower (to pay claims vs implement redesign). The subsequent cases set several precedents & provoked reforms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Similarities between the two end up at "businesses write stuff off as costs of doing business instead of dealing with them up front". One can't just transfer moral judgment from one to the other.
  - toss1 8y ago
    I made no claim that there was any more link than dealing with it as a cost-benefit calculation instead of properly sorting the problem up front. I was not implying any moral judgement transfer, only the similarity of bad results of failing to deal with issues up front.
- justtopost 8y ago
  Too bad the videos were staged. While not a great design, it was not the disaster you proport. 2 tv shows were found to have faked fires. Fake news is not new.
  - toss1 8y ago
    You are thinking of a different incident with their Trucks in the 2000s, not the Pinto issue from the 1970s/80s. Failure to get accurate information before spouting off is apparently also not new.