6 ms·

I don't see any basis why the complaint is interesting - there's assertion that the ice cream machine manufacturer is copying features of the competitor's devic

I don't see any basis why the complaint is interesting - there's assertion that the ice cream machine manufacturer is copying features of the competitor's device, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and, in the absence of patent protection (the word "patent" is not mentioned in the article) absolutely permissible; and there's some assertion of "stealing trade secrets" without asserting any actual compromise of a secret by someone entrusted to keep it, but rather an act which looks like reverse engineering a product (which, again, does not require a permission for physical devices not covered by patents or copyright; trade secret law explicitly states that reverse engineering is a lawful way of acquiring trade secrets) and its documentation, which should be considered a very reasonable thing to do for anyone with a hacker mentality. Trade secret applies only to things that you actually keep secret, all the things you sell or give to your customers aren't trade secrets any more. "There was a concerted effort to not only obtain and copy our device and follow everything we were doing, but then also, when it hit a critical mass, to actually put us out of business," - that's pretty much textbook definition of market competition, not an indication of anything shady. "Kytch argued in its initial legal complaint that the company didn't truly copy Kytch's device to try to fix McDonald's ice cream machines, but simply to have a competing product it could tout to McDonald's—and McDonald's franchisees—in order to prevent Kytch from fixing those machines." - again, it's perfectly legitimate to try and make a competing product to tout to McDonalds; unless they're violating a specific patent, it's their right to do so; more competition is a good thing to have.

kjaftaedi 5y ago
I wouldn't call it competition since McDonald's specifically forbade franchisees from using Kytch's device.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  Yeah, and for some reason McD thinks you need a technician to fix something hard like "container overfilled" or something. And apparently even Taylor thinks this is stupid. Sounds like an "ok boomer" moment. (or maybe something involving financial incentives, can't exclude that) "Who mitms their own machine?!" Well, did Taylor fire the engineers that built this? Or they just want to keep the same limited hw and work the diagnostics part around it?
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    If McDonald's want's to error on the side of caution, isn't that their prerogative?
    - raverbashing 5y ago
      Sure, it's their prerrogative to continue squeezing their franchisees as much as they can and make their work as hard as they can. If I wanted to lose money there are less painful ways than being a McD franchisee. McD's actual business is on real estate/franchise fees. The food business is secondary and is a justification for the first. Guess which part is risky and complicated?
      - heisenbit 5y ago
        Abusive monopolistic behavior if left unchecked can lead to great evil. This was recognized a long time ago and led to anti monopoly legislation and enforcement. Just think what would have happened to the internet if AT&T‘s stranglehold over the connection of equipment to telephone lines had continued. Strangling is not a prerogative of the strongest.
    - josefx 5y ago
      Problem is McDonald's isn't paying for all the unnecessary service calls, it is the restaurant owner that have to buy the McDonald's mandated machines that end up paying. So you have McDonald's which has no incentive to change things, Taylor which profits from the situation since their devices are mandated and the restaurant owners who have to foot the bill for hundreds of pointless service calls.
      - colejohnson66 5y ago
        But what does McDonald's gain from the PR backlash? Is there some perpetual contract between McDonald's and Taylor, and they just screwed up by buying a worse model? You'd think that the corporate overlords would perfer the machine to be working so they make money from the sales...
ehsankia 5y ago
I haven't been following this super closely but I think you're missing an entire angle of this. The copying part is just a symptom, the real issue was that 1. McDonald's forced all franchise owners to use this machine that would break often, and could only be fixed by this other company McDonalds had close ties to. 2. McDonald's didn't allow franchise owners to allow this other tool that allowed franchise owners to keep their machines up and working 3. (What you mention) now the other company just copied this tool for themselves. 1 and 2 is much more problematic, given the close ties between McDonalds and Taylor Company.
- 10u152 5y ago
  1. - As an ex employee - it’s a little bit more complicated than that. The machines have strict daily/weekly protocols for cleaning/maintenance and when they’re not met they “break” and need to have a tech reset them. It’s obviously due to the manufacturer not wanting to be liable for anything from a food poisoning standpoint. I don’t think they have a lower MTBF for “real” failures than competitors.
  - wvenable 5y ago
    They do have a lower MTBF than other Taylor machines sold to other fast food chains. McDonalds requires franchises to purchase specific models that are more prone to failure and harder to repair.
    - azinman2 5y ago
      Why would they do that?
      - Eelongate 5y ago
        Maybe because McDonald's and/or Taylor think the average McDonald's employee is less reliable than the industry average restaurant worker. Or maybe McDonald's simply tolerates less liability than the rest and requested the machines be configured in this way. As far as I'm aware, McDonald's hasn't sued Taylor over this, maybe because it was their idea in the first place?
unreal37 5y ago
It's an interesting case to be sure. McDonald's Franchisees are independent business owners. McDonald's is refusing to fix a problem, and has pushed a potential fix for the problem "out of business". Not sure what the chances of this succeeding, but now we have Taylor and McDonald's hands dirty in trying to "buy this device and copy it's features and user interface". And lying about it when they said they had "no interest in the device". It's not pretty.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Lying is shitty (but usually legal), however "buy this device and copy it's features and user interface" is not "dirty hands" but a completely legitimate course of action. They would have hands dirty if they had bribed some Kytch engineers for schematics or hired someone to steal a prototype, but there's nothing wrong about buying a product and reverse engineering it. In fact, I would consider placing restrictions on that - e.g. software EULAs that prohibit reverse engineering - as immoral.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Completely agree. I don't understand why copying is so vilified. It should be the norm. It's also weird how people can somehow sign away their rights via contracts. Courts shouldn't allow them to do that. A clause saying people can't reverse engineer should simply be considered invalid and not enforced...
    - jawns 5y ago
      Part of the vilification of copying has to do with some existing injustices baked into modern capitalism. We're told that if you're a little guy, you can beat the Goliaths through innovation and outmaneuvering. But if BigCo can just copy SmallCo's innovations, that becomes untrue. Do patents help here? Yes, but it's quite expensive, in practice, to amass and defend them. In many cases, smaller players don't have the resources to patent every innovation, even if those innovations are objectively patentable. So I think, in general, although people recognize that copying of unpatented innovations is legal, there's a feeling that a BigCo, which already has many advantages because of its size, should be competing based on its own innovations, not by copying from smaller players.
blinding-streak 5y ago
> I don't see any basis why the complaint is interesting Hard disagree. I'm finding this saga fascinating. You don't think Taylor lying to Wired journalists, and being called out for doing so, is interesting?
- TheJoeMan 5y ago
  I have always found our putting up with Corporate PR lies so crazy. This wasn’t a stretch of the truth, or a belief what they were saying was true and missed a single internal email. Taylor’s statement was knowingly completely untrue. Say what you want about the China social credit system but if there was a way the associated press could blackball Taylor/the spokesperson for Taylor from ever publishing another statement I think the world would be a better place.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    No reason to go so far. Just prepend "documented liar" to every instance of "Taylor spokesperson".
- HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
  I think OP is being specific. The civil complaint is not particularly interesting, I agree, but the overall saga is.
sigzero 5y ago
"There was a concerted effort to not only obtain and copy our device and follow everything we were doing, but then also, when it hit a critical mass, to actually put us out of business," That is NOT market competition...at all and it is 100% shady. Competition is "I make something, you make something better". It's not "You make something. I make something to make it better. YOU try to put me out of business by LEGAL means." That is not competition.

kjaftaedi 5y ago

I wouldn't call it competition since McDonald's specifically forbade franchisees from using Kytch's device.

raverbashing 5y ago
Yeah, and for some reason McD thinks you need a technician to fix something hard like "container overfilled" or something. And apparently even Taylor thinks this is stupid. Sounds like an "ok boomer" moment. (or maybe something involving financial incentives, can't exclude that) "Who mitms their own machine?!" Well, did Taylor fire the engineers that built this? Or they just want to keep the same limited hw and work the diagnostics part around it?
- Eelongate 5y ago
  If McDonald's want's to error on the side of caution, isn't that their prerogative?
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    Sure, it's their prerrogative to continue squeezing their franchisees as much as they can and make their work as hard as they can. If I wanted to lose money there are less painful ways than being a McD franchisee. McD's actual business is on real estate/franchise fees. The food business is secondary and is a justification for the first. Guess which part is risky and complicated?
    - heisenbit 5y ago
      Abusive monopolistic behavior if left unchecked can lead to great evil. This was recognized a long time ago and led to anti monopoly legislation and enforcement. Just think what would have happened to the internet if AT&T‘s stranglehold over the connection of equipment to telephone lines had continued. Strangling is not a prerogative of the strongest.
  - josefx 5y ago
    Problem is McDonald's isn't paying for all the unnecessary service calls, it is the restaurant owner that have to buy the McDonald's mandated machines that end up paying. So you have McDonald's which has no incentive to change things, Taylor which profits from the situation since their devices are mandated and the restaurant owners who have to foot the bill for hundreds of pointless service calls.
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      But what does McDonald's gain from the PR backlash? Is there some perpetual contract between McDonald's and Taylor, and they just screwed up by buying a worse model? You'd think that the corporate overlords would perfer the machine to be working so they make money from the sales...

ehsankia 5y ago

I haven't been following this super closely but I think you're missing an entire angle of this. The copying part is just a symptom, the real issue was that 1. McDonald's forced all franchise owners to use this machine that would break often, and could only be fixed by this other company McDonalds had close ties to. 2. McDonald's didn't allow franchise owners to allow this other tool that allowed franchise owners to keep their machines up and working 3. (What you mention) now the other company just copied this tool for themselves. 1 and 2 is much more problematic, given the close ties between McDonalds and Taylor Company.

10u152 5y ago
1. - As an ex employee - it’s a little bit more complicated than that. The machines have strict daily/weekly protocols for cleaning/maintenance and when they’re not met they “break” and need to have a tech reset them. It’s obviously due to the manufacturer not wanting to be liable for anything from a food poisoning standpoint. I don’t think they have a lower MTBF for “real” failures than competitors.
- wvenable 5y ago
  They do have a lower MTBF than other Taylor machines sold to other fast food chains. McDonalds requires franchises to purchase specific models that are more prone to failure and harder to repair.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    Why would they do that?
    - Eelongate 5y ago
      Maybe because McDonald's and/or Taylor think the average McDonald's employee is less reliable than the industry average restaurant worker. Or maybe McDonald's simply tolerates less liability than the rest and requested the machines be configured in this way. As far as I'm aware, McDonald's hasn't sued Taylor over this, maybe because it was their idea in the first place?

unreal37 5y ago

It's an interesting case to be sure. McDonald's Franchisees are independent business owners. McDonald's is refusing to fix a problem, and has pushed a potential fix for the problem "out of business". Not sure what the chances of this succeeding, but now we have Taylor and McDonald's hands dirty in trying to "buy this device and copy it's features and user interface". And lying about it when they said they had "no interest in the device". It's not pretty.

PeterisP 5y ago
Lying is shitty (but usually legal), however "buy this device and copy it's features and user interface" is not "dirty hands" but a completely legitimate course of action. They would have hands dirty if they had bribed some Kytch engineers for schematics or hired someone to steal a prototype, but there's nothing wrong about buying a product and reverse engineering it. In fact, I would consider placing restrictions on that - e.g. software EULAs that prohibit reverse engineering - as immoral.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Completely agree. I don't understand why copying is so vilified. It should be the norm. It's also weird how people can somehow sign away their rights via contracts. Courts shouldn't allow them to do that. A clause saying people can't reverse engineer should simply be considered invalid and not enforced...
  - jawns 5y ago
    Part of the vilification of copying has to do with some existing injustices baked into modern capitalism. We're told that if you're a little guy, you can beat the Goliaths through innovation and outmaneuvering. But if BigCo can just copy SmallCo's innovations, that becomes untrue. Do patents help here? Yes, but it's quite expensive, in practice, to amass and defend them. In many cases, smaller players don't have the resources to patent every innovation, even if those innovations are objectively patentable. So I think, in general, although people recognize that copying of unpatented innovations is legal, there's a feeling that a BigCo, which already has many advantages because of its size, should be competing based on its own innovations, not by copying from smaller players.

blinding-streak 5y ago

> I don't see any basis why the complaint is interesting Hard disagree. I'm finding this saga fascinating. You don't think Taylor lying to Wired journalists, and being called out for doing so, is interesting?

TheJoeMan 5y ago
I have always found our putting up with Corporate PR lies so crazy. This wasn’t a stretch of the truth, or a belief what they were saying was true and missed a single internal email. Taylor’s statement was knowingly completely untrue. Say what you want about the China social credit system but if there was a way the associated press could blackball Taylor/the spokesperson for Taylor from ever publishing another statement I think the world would be a better place.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  No reason to go so far. Just prepend "documented liar" to every instance of "Taylor spokesperson".
HeyLaughingBoy 5y ago
I think OP is being specific. The civil complaint is not particularly interesting, I agree, but the overall saga is.

sigzero 5y ago

"There was a concerted effort to not only obtain and copy our device and follow everything we were doing, but then also, when it hit a critical mass, to actually put us out of business," That is NOT market competition...at all and it is 100% shady. Competition is "I make something, you make something better". It's not "You make something. I make something to make it better. YOU try to put me out of business by LEGAL means." That is not competition.