I challenge you to find a Starbucks seeing drip coffee at 190+ degrees. You won't succeed.
To be honest the tort law site that made the claim does not specify if the coffee sold by starbucks is drip coffee or not.
The lady's lawyers argued that coffee should not be served at temperatures in excess of 160°f, citing that at such temperatures it would take 20 seconds to scald rather than 12-15 at 180°f.
Other courts have reject these claims.
Bogle v. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd., UK 2002
"If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled."
In the Liebeck case the jury accused McDonalds of being partly negligent in not providing sufficiently large warnings on the cup, the temperature was not the issue.
By and large the case seems to have been sexed up by the press over the years to the point where accounts are no longer factually true, much like the case of the female astronaut who did not wear a nappy to avoid toilet stops.
I'm no patent lawyer but I can't see how anything in this patent relates to anything being used today. If there models weren't specifically stating they were analog perhaps I'd think they had something, but as it is this looks like the most pathetic patent troll date.
It sounds more like ISDN, as an example a BRI had bearer and digitally encoded voice using symbol block encoding. It does not feel like analog POTS or xDSL which do not rely on symbol block encoding for the voice transmission for the side channel.
AT&T could regret letting this patent go although they probably had to with the Lucent split.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by sessamoid
I challenge you to find a Starbucks seeing drip coffee at 190+ degrees. You won't succeed.
To be honest the tort law site that made the claim does not specify if the coffee sold by starbucks is drip coffee or not.
The lady's lawyers argued that coffee should not be served at temperatures in excess of 160°f, citing that at such temperatures it would take 20 seconds to scald rather than 12-15 at 180°f.
Other courts have reject these claims.
Bogle v. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd., UK 2002
"If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled."
In the Liebeck case the jury accused McDonalds of being partly negligent in not providing sufficiently large warnings on the cup, the temperature was not the issue.
By and large the case seems to have been sexed up by the press over the years to the point where accounts are no longer factually true, much like the case of the female astronaut who did not wear a nappy to avoid toilet stops.
It sounds more like ISDN, as an example a BRI had bearer and digitally encoded voice using symbol block encoding. It does not feel like analog POTS or xDSL which do not rely on symbol block encoding for the voice transmission for the side channel.
AT&T could regret letting this patent go although they probably had to with the Lucent split.