6 ms·

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.

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?
      - skjoldr 5y ago
        It is the franchisee who pays for repairs. Of course it was McD's idea. They make a cut.
        Eelongate 5y ago
        I haven't seen any actual evidence that Taylor is giving kickbacks to McDonald's. I've only a lot of insinuation and accusation of such a kickback, because the accusers don't seem to consider other possibilities. One possible reason other than a kickback: McDonald's wants the machines to error on the side of food safety and don't trust their own employees to not fuck it up.
        vbo 5y ago
        I doubt they make more from repairs than by selling ice cream made by functional machines.
        cainxinth 5y ago
        True, but ice cream is expensive. Soda and fries are cheap. Burgers and ice cream get people into the store where they buy soda and fries. And I’m sure many a person has gone to McDonalds wanting ice cream and upon learning the machine is down, decided to get a drink and fries instead.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      And why would the manufacturer build that? Is it really the razorblade business model?
    - wvenable 5y ago
      McDonalds and Taylor have a very close relationship.
PeterisP 5y ago
Well, 1. and 2. is about contracts between McDonalds and their franchisees, so if a franchise owner feels unfairly harmed by this restriction, then they can sue McDonalds, it's not something about which Kytch should be able to sue Taylor. And, once again, it's perfectly reasonable and very common for franchise agreements to mandate certain suppliers for some products, goods and services, and the close ties don't make it problematic, it's common for some of the suppliers to be wholly owned a subsidiary of the mother company, and it's common for these suppliers to be not very good but as the shared money-maker for the franchise scheme. There's no fundamental difference between McDonalds franchise contract saying that franchises must use only this ice cream machine and the same contract saying that franchises must make BigMacs only according to this exact recipe. If the franchise operator thinks that the BigMac recipe sucks, they don't get to change it or demand a fix - if McDonalds thinks that's good enough, they can take it or leave it and stop being a McDonalds franchise. The same is regarding McDonalds ice cream process; it may legitimately suck, but it's part of the package deal. If McDonalds wants to buy from Taylor and not from Kytch, that's their choice, effectively McDonalds (and not the franchise operator) is the customer here; and if they are a lousy customer, there are other customers to fight for - IIRC McDonalds bought 25% of Taylor machines, so there are many others out there. And #3 is not a bad or even a neutral thing - reverse engineering other products is great, please everyone do more of it! Good features should be copied and adopted across the whole market (both in hardware and in software), that's the exact kind of competition that benefits the community; and that's a manifestation of the hacker spirit that should be celebrated, not get shamed about. While legal restrictions such as the excessive patent regime and the excessive length of copyright often prevents people from doing that, in cases where it is not prohibited, this is a good thing to do.
- Niksko 5y ago
  You're missing an important aspect of the lawsuit. Kytch is alleging loss of business due to defamation by McDonald's, be because McDs falsely claimed that the Kytch could harm the Taylor machines.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    If Taylor hasn't certified the Kytch product to safely integrate with the Taylor product, it seems reasonable for Taylor to say it could cause problems. If they said it will cause problems, that seems a bit different.

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?
    - skjoldr 5y ago
      It is the franchisee who pays for repairs. Of course it was McD's idea. They make a cut.
      - Eelongate 5y ago
        I haven't seen any actual evidence that Taylor is giving kickbacks to McDonald's. I've only a lot of insinuation and accusation of such a kickback, because the accusers don't seem to consider other possibilities. One possible reason other than a kickback: McDonald's wants the machines to error on the side of food safety and don't trust their own employees to not fuck it up.
      - vbo 5y ago
        I doubt they make more from repairs than by selling ice cream made by functional machines.
        cainxinth 5y ago
        True, but ice cream is expensive. Soda and fries are cheap. Burgers and ice cream get people into the store where they buy soda and fries. And I’m sure many a person has gone to McDonalds wanting ice cream and upon learning the machine is down, decided to get a drink and fries instead.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    And why would the manufacturer build that? Is it really the razorblade business model?
  - wvenable 5y ago
    McDonalds and Taylor have a very close relationship.

PeterisP 5y ago

Well, 1. and 2. is about contracts between McDonalds and their franchisees, so if a franchise owner feels unfairly harmed by this restriction, then they can sue McDonalds, it's not something about which Kytch should be able to sue Taylor. And, once again, it's perfectly reasonable and very common for franchise agreements to mandate certain suppliers for some products, goods and services, and the close ties don't make it problematic, it's common for some of the suppliers to be wholly owned a subsidiary of the mother company, and it's common for these suppliers to be not very good but as the shared money-maker for the franchise scheme. There's no fundamental difference between McDonalds franchise contract saying that franchises must use only this ice cream machine and the same contract saying that franchises must make BigMacs only according to this exact recipe. If the franchise operator thinks that the BigMac recipe sucks, they don't get to change it or demand a fix - if McDonalds thinks that's good enough, they can take it or leave it and stop being a McDonalds franchise. The same is regarding McDonalds ice cream process; it may legitimately suck, but it's part of the package deal. If McDonalds wants to buy from Taylor and not from Kytch, that's their choice, effectively McDonalds (and not the franchise operator) is the customer here; and if they are a lousy customer, there are other customers to fight for - IIRC McDonalds bought 25% of Taylor machines, so there are many others out there. And #3 is not a bad or even a neutral thing - reverse engineering other products is great, please everyone do more of it! Good features should be copied and adopted across the whole market (both in hardware and in software), that's the exact kind of competition that benefits the community; and that's a manifestation of the hacker spirit that should be celebrated, not get shamed about. While legal restrictions such as the excessive patent regime and the excessive length of copyright often prevents people from doing that, in cases where it is not prohibited, this is a good thing to do.

Niksko 5y ago
You're missing an important aspect of the lawsuit. Kytch is alleging loss of business due to defamation by McDonald's, be because McDs falsely claimed that the Kytch could harm the Taylor machines.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  If Taylor hasn't certified the Kytch product to safely integrate with the Taylor product, it seems reasonable for Taylor to say it could cause problems. If they said it will cause problems, that seems a bit different.