5 ms·

Your product is in the shape of a rectangle, we invented rectangle. Pay us money for our invention or we will sue you in 50 different nations. there needs to

by maeon3 15y ago

Your product is in the shape of a rectangle, we invented rectangle. Pay us money for our invention or we will sue you in 50 different nations. there needs to be a penalty for the attacking company when frivolous patent suits are shown to be ridiculous.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
The problem is that very few claims are genuinely ridiculous. There can be differences of opinion on what's valid, and things which are untested in law, but for the most part there will be a germ of something at the heart of the claim which will make it potentially reasonable. Judges tend to throw the genuine dross out very early on. The one that always springs to mind is the MacDonald's too hot coffee case. On the surface it sounds like complete nonsense but when you look at the detail the claim was perfectly reasonable and deserved to win (which it did).
- grannyg00se 15y ago
  I think there are plenty of frivolous cases. When I looked at the details of thee hot coffee case the claim seemed even more absurd. The physical damage was worse than I expected but that doesn't make her less responsible.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    The fact that: (a) MacDonalds had been warned about this repeatedly in the past and (b) that the coffee was being served at temperatures significantly higher than you'd normally get from a kettle at home / work thus rendering the sort of normal expectations you might have moot didn't seem pertinent to you?
    - grannyg00se 15y ago
      a) Warned about what exactly? That people are going to be reckless and possibly injure themselves? What action is McDonalds supposed to take to prevent idiocy? It's not a children's toy. It's for adult consumption. b) Why would I expect that it would be similar to what I do at home? It's McDonalds. They serve their coffee very hot. People like to drive to work, and still have it hot when they arrive. Also, I have no expectations of those cups other than that they are flimsy. The temperature issue is not relevant anyway because if she wasn't negligent in her use of the cup the contents would have been kept safely contained. A knife in a restaurant can cause significant damage as well if you decide to be an idiot and try to remove an eye lash from someone's eye with it. Would you say that the knife was too sharp? That it is sharper than the knives you use at home?
  - admiralpumpkin 15y ago
    Please explain "the details" which made it "even more absurd" to you. At what temperature would you start to assign responsibility to McDonalds? Can they, in your mind, give out boiling coffee without culpability? [edit: typo]
    - talmand 15y ago
      If a person asks for boiling water, then yes, McDonald's may sell such a product without culpability. But the debate over how hot coffee should be is a different discussion. I'm curious though, what is the proper temperature of coffee? I for one don't drink it so I have no idea.
      - yason 15y ago
        If Mr Darwin is at work, nobody should have the right to sue. Their coffee might be very hot or not so very hot, but the real problem is that thinking which allows the customer to lay blame on McDonald's without ever considering any responsibility for himself. That thinking blatantly ignores the fact that everyone is—to a fair extent and by default—responsible for their own mishaps unless they truly had no reasonable way to guess or test for the surprise outcome. If you're buying a hot drink in the first place, it's just common sense to merely touch the cup first to figure out if it's too hot before lifting it and burning your fingers. Similarly, when washing your hands you will generally first test the temperature of the running water before you splurge into your watery rejoicings instead of suing the café for reckless overuse of their water boiler. Further, most people learn very early on to try out if a stove plate is hot first before focusing on pressing their hands against it. Now, admittedly, there are some things that you couldn't possibly avoid yourself. For example, unless otherwise signposted, publicly available staircases should hold together while you're stomping up and down on them. Door handles shouldn't deliver you a surprise shock directly from electric mains. A new car probably shouldn't explode on you when you turn on the ignition. But these come in rare numbers and equally extreme conditions. Known accident-prone activities, such as driving, are explicitly protected via mandatory insurance in general. But in life in general, anyone can be expected to avoid many unexpected accidents with mere common sense, and still most of the rest of the incidents are well, just accidents. Accidents do happen and the driving nature of accidents is well, accidental, i.e. "nobody's fault" in general.
- ajross 15y ago
  Clearly Apple isn't dumb and won't sue where there is no chance of "victory" (defined in a business sense, not always meaning "victory in court"). And indeed: they got a injunction (albeit an ephemeral one) in Germany over the design of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. So in fact they were right, and so are you. There was enough of a case to make this advantageous to pursue. That doesn't change the fact that this is terribly hurtful to the consumer, the market, and (I can only hope) Apple's public perception. It's just awful, sorry.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Only because the patent law is broken. Just because the patents are made "according to the law", doesn't mean they are good patents.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by maeon3 15y ago

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago

The problem is that very few claims are genuinely ridiculous. There can be differences of opinion on what's valid, and things which are untested in law, but for the most part there will be a germ of something at the heart of the claim which will make it potentially reasonable. Judges tend to throw the genuine dross out very early on. The one that always springs to mind is the MacDonald's too hot coffee case. On the surface it sounds like complete nonsense but when you look at the detail the claim was perfectly reasonable and deserved to win (which it did).

grannyg00se 15y ago
I think there are plenty of frivolous cases. When I looked at the details of thee hot coffee case the claim seemed even more absurd. The physical damage was worse than I expected but that doesn't make her less responsible.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  The fact that: (a) MacDonalds had been warned about this repeatedly in the past and (b) that the coffee was being served at temperatures significantly higher than you'd normally get from a kettle at home / work thus rendering the sort of normal expectations you might have moot didn't seem pertinent to you?
  - grannyg00se 15y ago
    a) Warned about what exactly? That people are going to be reckless and possibly injure themselves? What action is McDonalds supposed to take to prevent idiocy? It's not a children's toy. It's for adult consumption. b) Why would I expect that it would be similar to what I do at home? It's McDonalds. They serve their coffee very hot. People like to drive to work, and still have it hot when they arrive. Also, I have no expectations of those cups other than that they are flimsy. The temperature issue is not relevant anyway because if she wasn't negligent in her use of the cup the contents would have been kept safely contained. A knife in a restaurant can cause significant damage as well if you decide to be an idiot and try to remove an eye lash from someone's eye with it. Would you say that the knife was too sharp? That it is sharper than the knives you use at home?
- admiralpumpkin 15y ago
  Please explain "the details" which made it "even more absurd" to you. At what temperature would you start to assign responsibility to McDonalds? Can they, in your mind, give out boiling coffee without culpability? [edit: typo]
  - talmand 15y ago
    If a person asks for boiling water, then yes, McDonald's may sell such a product without culpability. But the debate over how hot coffee should be is a different discussion. I'm curious though, what is the proper temperature of coffee? I for one don't drink it so I have no idea.
    - yason 15y ago
      If Mr Darwin is at work, nobody should have the right to sue. Their coffee might be very hot or not so very hot, but the real problem is that thinking which allows the customer to lay blame on McDonald's without ever considering any responsibility for himself. That thinking blatantly ignores the fact that everyone is—to a fair extent and by default—responsible for their own mishaps unless they truly had no reasonable way to guess or test for the surprise outcome. If you're buying a hot drink in the first place, it's just common sense to merely touch the cup first to figure out if it's too hot before lifting it and burning your fingers. Similarly, when washing your hands you will generally first test the temperature of the running water before you splurge into your watery rejoicings instead of suing the café for reckless overuse of their water boiler. Further, most people learn very early on to try out if a stove plate is hot first before focusing on pressing their hands against it. Now, admittedly, there are some things that you couldn't possibly avoid yourself. For example, unless otherwise signposted, publicly available staircases should hold together while you're stomping up and down on them. Door handles shouldn't deliver you a surprise shock directly from electric mains. A new car probably shouldn't explode on you when you turn on the ignition. But these come in rare numbers and equally extreme conditions. Known accident-prone activities, such as driving, are explicitly protected via mandatory insurance in general. But in life in general, anyone can be expected to avoid many unexpected accidents with mere common sense, and still most of the rest of the incidents are well, just accidents. Accidents do happen and the driving nature of accidents is well, accidental, i.e. "nobody's fault" in general.
ajross 15y ago
Clearly Apple isn't dumb and won't sue where there is no chance of "victory" (defined in a business sense, not always meaning "victory in court"). And indeed: they got a injunction (albeit an ephemeral one) in Germany over the design of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. So in fact they were right, and so are you. There was enough of a case to make this advantageous to pursue. That doesn't change the fact that this is terribly hurtful to the consumer, the market, and (I can only hope) Apple's public perception. It's just awful, sorry.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Only because the patent law is broken. Just because the patents are made "according to the law", doesn't mean they are good patents.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]