Your use of the word steal is interesting. If you really think it's not possible for people to conceive of similar ideas independently of each other you need to reevaluate everything.
That is why I used the words steal my idea and use my process in one post. It is possible so it will need to work its way through the legal process and we can revisit this sometime in the future. As I just posted to hill60, given the high journalist standards and commitment to impartiality you hold yourself to, I regret not adding this clarification in every post. No need to reevaluate everything but if we did, we could maybe agree that it is time for a beer.
Actually, the real problem here is that you don't understand the difference in meaning between the words "stolen"and "infringed". Using the word "stolen" (repeatedly) does work very well though if you wish to display hysteria.
Nicely done.
Again I can agree with you. I do not know if they 'allegedly' stole or inadvertently infringed. I am happy to concede that. No hysteria.
Okay. But as this patent holder is just that, not using them for any purpose other than suing others, they are, by definition a "patent troll".
And as that was the original argument that your post attempted to refute, I say a third time that you could not be more incorrect about your refutation. I again mention for the record that you have since moved the argument on a tangent.
Okay. But as this patent holder is just that—not using them for any purpose other than suing others—they are, by definition, a "patent troll".
And as that was the original argument that your post attempted to refute, I say a third time that you could not be more incorrect about your refutation. I again mention for the record that you have since moved the argument on a tangent.
I said it quiet correctly. You just need to r e a d it really really slowly. Even my 6 year old gets that you can't use someone else's IP without paying for it, even if a so called patent troll holds the patent and sues or a company who actually makes things sues to protect their IP. In both cars they are well within their legal rights.
I said it quiet correctly. You just need to r e a d it really really slowly. Even my 6 year old gets that you can't use someone else's IP without paying for it, even if a so called patent troll holds the patent a d sues or a company who actually makes things sues to protect their IP. In both cars they are well within their legal rights.
Why don't I have a "That's not the argument" Apple Executive Reaction Image… Maybe he'd understand that.
Why don't I have a "That's not the argument" Apple Executive Reaction Image… Maybe he'd understand that.
Okay. You got me there. Why DON'T you have a '"That's not the argument" Apple Executive Reaction Image' ? Not sure what it is but when you have I'd like to see it.
The owner of a patent should understand the patented technology which, clearly, these idiots do not. Apple should be able to countersue for "malicious misuse of process". As a Apple stockholder, I would like to recover the legal expenses as well as punitive damages!
Never know.. We've see people win lawsuits for coffee being to hot.. If they babble fast enough and confuse the jury, they might win anyway. lol
The McDonald's coffee temperature lawsuit was valid. McDonald's had been told repeatedly by inspectors that its coffee temperature was too high and they repeatedly neglected to reduce the temperature. The woman who sued was not driving, was on the passenger side, and the vehicle was parked. The spill could have happened to anyone. Getting 3rd degree burns in your body from an accident with a simple cup of coffee is an unreasonable risk for a fast food chain to take for its customers. It's an unreasonable situation.
Yes. I seriously am! You may not like it but the law is the law. If you steal the intellectual property of another company you run the risk of going to court. Since when is it okay for Apple to have potentially stolen another companies IP? Take your time trying to figure out justifying theft when Apple does it. Now till it goes to trial no one here has any idea of what the final outcome will be. But if Apple is found to have violated someone's IP, they will have to pay up.
Your agurment is based on Apple stealing this property, and you say they should pay up because the law is the law(no matter how stupid is may be); but, the iPhones does not use this technology, the closest thing to this patent that is used in the iPhone is only used in the iPhone model, made for this technology inventor (AT&T)
It's funny how something can be the poster child for something and yet not be a valid example.
Do people really not know that she went to the hospital where she remained there for 8 days getting skin gaffs or do they really just want to assume that the word "hot" means any temperature above warm yet still be perfectly acceptable and reasonable.
I know little about the truer side of the story but I assumed that a black coffee would, at the point of production, be 100ºc until milk etc was added, ie hot enough to cause harm. I also assume that I should not touch the metal griddle that my sizzling platter turns up on.
Do you, or anyone else have a link to a text based version of the story?
I know little about the truer side of the story but I assumed that a black coffee would, at the point of production, be 100ºc until milk etc was added, ie hot enough to cause harm. I also assume that I should not touch the metal griddle that my sizzling platter turns up on.
Do you, or anyone else have a link to a text based version of the story?
1) Google it. It's a very well known case with a lot of public court documents.
2) No! Coffee sitting in a pot is not boiling. The optimal water temperature for brewing is below boiling with the temperature after its brewed and then after it's poured is lower. As previously stated, the temperature was deliberately turned up past what is reasonable and safe specifically to keep the coffee from needing to be replaced as often. This was negligent behavior.
3) I have to wonder how jaded one be to assume that a 79yo woman who was sitting in a parked car and spent 8 days in the hospital under the care of multiple physicians undergoing skin grafts was making it all up. That assumes a huge conspiracy on the part of many people to sue McDonalds.
The McDonald's coffee temperature lawsuit was valid. McDonald's had been told repeatedly by inspectors that its coffee temperature was too high and they repeatedly neglected to reduce the temperature. The woman who sued was not driving, was on the passenger side, and the vehicle was parked. The spill could have happened to anyone. Getting 3rd degree burns in your body from an accident with a simple cup of coffee is an unreasonable risk for a fast food chain to take for its customers. It's an unreasonable situation.
Patent trolls, however, have my ire.
No one is stupid enough to put hot coffee between their legs.
That would be because it was too hot. Folks diss on that case cause yes it was stupid for her to have the cup in her lap but an investigation showed that McDonalds in her area and others were brewing the coffee too hot.
So, what is the "lega" definition of "too hot"? Is that based on how stupid one is when handling something the is generally known as "hot" and how well a lawyer can argue the point? When I grew up, if something said "hot", you were careful regardless of how hot it was. That was and still is a stupid case that should have been thrown out. And it still serves as an example of how not may people take responsibility for their own actions. They'd rather blame someone or something else for stupid things they do. This is seen every day on TV and on the web.
1) Google it. It's a very well known case with a lot of public court documents.
2) No! Coffee sitting in a pot is not boiling. The optimal water temperature for brewing is below boiling with the temperature after its brewed and then after it's poured is lower. As previously stated, the temperature was deliberately turned up past what is reasonable and safe specifically to keep the coffee from needing to be replaced as often. This was negligent behavior.
3) I have to wonder how jaded one be to assume that a 79yo woman who was sitting in a parked car and spent 8 days in the hospital under the care of multiple physicians undergoing skin grafts was making it all up. That assumes a huge conspiracy on the part of many people to sue McDonalds.
I don't drink coffee, but when I make instant for she-who-must-be-obeyed, I add the granules to water poured straight from the kettle.
Water at 60°c (140°f) can result in 3rd degree burns in 3 seconds. I would be rather annoyed if someone sold me a hot beverage as low as 60°c
At no point did I suggest that the lady made anything up but the fact remains that at the generally recommended serving range of 70°C to 80°C she would still have been injured.
At no point did I suggest that the lady made anything up but the fact remains that at the generally recommended serving range of 70°C to 80°C she would still have been injured.
So if any injury is possible it means that all injuries regardless of the neglect of the vendor should be allowed? That's like saying an automobile could cause injury if you're in an accident so any safety issues are allowed.
1) Google it. It's a very well known case with a lot of public court documents.
2) No! Coffee sitting in a pot is not boiling. The optimal water temperature for brewing is below boiling with the temperature after its brewed and then after it's poured is lower. As previously stated, the temperature was deliberately turned up past what is reasonable and safe specifically to keep the coffee from needing to be replaced as often. This was negligent behavior.
3) I have to wonder how jaded one be to assume that a 79yo woman who was sitting in a parked car and spent 8 days in the hospital under the care of multiple physicians undergoing skin grafts was making it all up. That assumes a huge conspiracy on the part of many people to sue McDonalds.
So if any injury is possible it means that all injuries regardless of the neglect of the vendor should be allowed? That's like saying an automobile could cause injury if you're in an accident so any safety issues are allowed.
You stated, earlier, that "the temperature was deliberately turned up past what is reasonable and safe specifically to keep the coffee from needing to be replaced as often. This was negligent behaviour."
The sources that I have read suggest that company policy was to provide drinks at a marginally higher temperature (180 to 190) not as a money saving exercise but to ensure that drinks would be warm on arriving at one's destination.
If the law dictates that drinks should not be served over a given temperature then I would agree that they were at fault. As it stands there is no upper limit and many stores such as Starbucks sell coffee that is even hotter.
I guess that the law does not legislate upper temperatures because it assumes that the public are intelligent enough to know that hot liquids will burn and considers that they will take adequate steps to prevent contact with skin.
Comments
Again I can agree with you. I do not know if they 'allegedly' stole or inadvertently infringed. I am happy to concede that. No hysteria.
Zzzzzz
I said it quiet correctly. You just need to r e a d it really really slowly. Even my 6 year old gets that you can't use someone else's IP without paying for it, even if a so called patent troll holds the patent and sues or a company who actually makes things sues to protect their IP. In both cars they are well within their legal rights.
Originally Posted by bulk001
I said it quiet correctly. You just need to r e a d it really really slowly. Even my 6 year old gets that you can't use someone else's IP without paying for it, even if a so called patent troll holds the patent a d sues or a company who actually makes things sues to protect their IP. In both cars they are well within their legal rights.
Why don't I have a "That's not the argument" Apple Executive Reaction Image… Maybe he'd understand that.
Okay. You got me there. Why DON'T you have a '"That's not the argument" Apple Executive Reaction Image' ? Not sure what it is but when you have I'd like to see it.
The McDonald's coffee temperature lawsuit was valid. McDonald's had been told repeatedly by inspectors that its coffee temperature was too high and they repeatedly neglected to reduce the temperature. The woman who sued was not driving, was on the passenger side, and the vehicle was parked. The spill could have happened to anyone. Getting 3rd degree burns in your body from an accident with a simple cup of coffee is an unreasonable risk for a fast food chain to take for its customers. It's an unreasonable situation.
Patent trolls, however, have my ire.
...or did not infringe at all.
Now excuse me while I find my ADSL splitter, I need to make a call...
...where do I plug this damn thing in?
Your agurment is based on Apple stealing this property, and you say they should pay up because the law is the law(no matter how stupid is may be); but, the iPhones does not use this technology, the closest thing to this patent that is used in the iPhone is only used in the iPhone model, made for this technology inventor (AT&T)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's funny how something can be the poster child for something and yet not be a valid example.
Do people really not know that she went to the hospital where she remained there for 8 days getting skin gaffs or do they really just want to assume that the word "hot" means any temperature above warm yet still be perfectly acceptable and reasonable.
For the younger audience or those that may have "conveniently" forgotten the facts there is documentary from 2011 on the issue on Netflix: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hot_Coffee/70167106?locale=en-US I have not seen it so I can't endorse its authenticity.
I know little about the truer side of the story but I assumed that a black coffee would, at the point of production, be 100ºc until milk etc was added, ie hot enough to cause harm. I also assume that I should not touch the metal griddle that my sizzling platter turns up on.
Do you, or anyone else have a link to a text based version of the story?
1) Google it. It's a very well known case with a lot of public court documents.
2) No! Coffee sitting in a pot is not boiling. The optimal water temperature for brewing is below boiling with the temperature after its brewed and then after it's poured is lower. As previously stated, the temperature was deliberately turned up past what is reasonable and safe specifically to keep the coffee from needing to be replaced as often. This was negligent behavior.
3) I have to wonder how jaded one be to assume that a 79yo woman who was sitting in a parked car and spent 8 days in the hospital under the care of multiple physicians undergoing skin grafts was making it all up. That assumes a huge conspiracy on the part of many people to sue McDonalds.
No one is stupid enough to put hot coffee between their legs.
Originally Posted by jungmark
No one is stupid enough to put hot coffee between their legs.
I've met people stupid enough to both put a cup of hot coffee between their legs and to pour hot coffee between their legs. It's not impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
That would be because it was too hot. Folks diss on that case cause yes it was stupid for her to have the cup in her lap but an investigation showed that McDonalds in her area and others were brewing the coffee too hot.
So, what is the "lega" definition of "too hot"? Is that based on how stupid one is when handling something the is generally known as "hot" and how well a lawyer can argue the point? When I grew up, if something said "hot", you were careful regardless of how hot it was. That was and still is a stupid case that should have been thrown out. And it still serves as an example of how not may people take responsibility for their own actions. They'd rather blame someone or something else for stupid things they do. This is seen every day on TV and on the web.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) Google it. It's a very well known case with a lot of public court documents.
2) No! Coffee sitting in a pot is not boiling. The optimal water temperature for brewing is below boiling with the temperature after its brewed and then after it's poured is lower. As previously stated, the temperature was deliberately turned up past what is reasonable and safe specifically to keep the coffee from needing to be replaced as often. This was negligent behavior.
3) I have to wonder how jaded one be to assume that a 79yo woman who was sitting in a parked car and spent 8 days in the hospital under the care of multiple physicians undergoing skin grafts was making it all up. That assumes a huge conspiracy on the part of many people to sue McDonalds.
I don't drink coffee, but when I make instant for she-who-must-be-obeyed, I add the granules to water poured straight from the kettle.
Water at 60°c (140°f) can result in 3rd degree burns in 3 seconds. I would be rather annoyed if someone sold me a hot beverage as low as 60°c
At no point did I suggest that the lady made anything up but the fact remains that at the generally recommended serving range of 70°C to 80°C she would still have been injured.
So if any injury is possible it means that all injuries regardless of the neglect of the vendor should be allowed? That's like saying an automobile could cause injury if you're in an accident so any safety issues are allowed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) Google it. It's a very well known case with a lot of public court documents.
2) No! Coffee sitting in a pot is not boiling. The optimal water temperature for brewing is below boiling with the temperature after its brewed and then after it's poured is lower. As previously stated, the temperature was deliberately turned up past what is reasonable and safe specifically to keep the coffee from needing to be replaced as often. This was negligent behavior.
3) I have to wonder how jaded one be to assume that a 79yo woman who was sitting in a parked car and spent 8 days in the hospital under the care of multiple physicians undergoing skin grafts was making it all up. That assumes a huge conspiracy on the part of many people to sue McDonalds.
1. http://mentalfloss.com/article/26862/real-details-hot-coffee-lawsuit
2. http://blackbearcoffee.com/resources/87
You might note there is a minor difference expressed in the opinions of coffee brewing temperatures.
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So if any injury is possible it means that all injuries regardless of the neglect of the vendor should be allowed? That's like saying an automobile could cause injury if you're in an accident so any safety issues are allowed.
You stated, earlier, that "the temperature was deliberately turned up past what is reasonable and safe specifically to keep the coffee from needing to be replaced as often. This was negligent behaviour."
The sources that I have read suggest that company policy was to provide drinks at a marginally higher temperature (180 to 190) not as a money saving exercise but to ensure that drinks would be warm on arriving at one's destination.
If the law dictates that drinks should not be served over a given temperature then I would agree that they were at fault. As it stands there is no upper limit and many stores such as Starbucks sell coffee that is even hotter.
I guess that the law does not legislate upper temperatures because it assumes that the public are intelligent enough to know that hot liquids will burn and considers that they will take adequate steps to prevent contact with skin.