PDA

View Full Version : Glacern vs Orange



Peter N
03-23-2013, 06:10 AM
Seems that Glacern have taken exception to Sols Orange Vise company and appear to have the legal eagles taken everything about it down.
Even PM have had legal overtones telling them to delete threads about Orange Vise, thread about it here:
http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/general/court-order-remove-certain-threads-pm-i-say-bs-what-do-you-say-262781/

As someone over there said, they seemed happy being a competitor to Kurt, but don't like it when someone does the same to them. More involved than that I know, but don't think the adverse publicity is going to be helping them at all.

Machtool
03-23-2013, 06:23 AM
You blokes are welcome to vote with you're wallets. The only bloke down here with a Glacern vise. I'll be offering to under write the cost of sending it back. As long as it has a note to stick it up there arse.

beanbag
03-23-2013, 06:29 AM
Once again PM drama carries over to HSM.

Machtool
03-23-2013, 06:44 AM
Once again PM drama carries over to HSM.
Pigs Arse. Did you bother to read the link / thread? It seriously envokes your ability to buy an Orange Vise. To the point Orange Vise have all ready pulled down their spec's, and can't sell you a new vise.

All of which are Glacern's legal issue's. Care to tell me again how thats PM drama?

beanbag
03-23-2013, 07:42 AM
Did you bother to read the link / thread?


yes I did and u better keep the drama over there unless you want george to get takedown notices as well.

Peter N
03-23-2013, 07:57 AM
The drama will in all probability happen here as well - "Orange Vise" is mentioned/listed in at least 9 seperate threads here on HSM, including this one:
http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/threads/57346-Orange-Vise-Company?highlight=Orange+Vise

And it's not really about PM at all, not in the slightest.

Machtool
03-23-2013, 08:10 AM
yes I did and u better keep the drama over there unless you want george to get takedown notices as well.
That would be almost funny, but given that Glacern are advertising here. I'd have thought George would have liked to have known, how they roll.

Mike Hunter
03-23-2013, 08:15 AM
My thoughts:

A CA court order has little impact on this site, can't force the the owners/mods to scrub this site clean of Oranger Vise related posts.

Secondly, Sol came on this site and asked our opinions of what we wanted in a vise, the only thing Glacern ever asked me was "Visa or Mastercard"?

Sol seems to be making a decent product and wants customer input beyond how they intend to pay.... Orange has my vote

V/R

Mike

aboard_epsilon
03-23-2013, 08:31 AM
i dont understand ..

looking at the glacern videos ..Sol appears to be the owner oif glacern ..and the only worker there..one man band.
now he has another company ..and he is being sued by glacern

please explain

if sol made those videos ..then i think he should pursue a career..in that direction ..as he is a true master at that game for sure ..channels like the discovery channel ..i wopuld not surprised if they were cueing up outside his house ..



all the best..markj

Black Forest
03-23-2013, 09:06 AM
For a long time PM has not seen my face around there. It takes minutes for any page to load. It is always stuck on something to do with the advertisements. Just a big white page.

JCHannum
03-23-2013, 09:28 AM
It appears that Sol was an engineer with Glacern and left them to start his own company. I have no idea what his relationship with Glacern was, whether he was an employee or in partnership some how. Glacern's case deals with his using their intellectual property, and it seems they have obtained a court decision in their favor.

The question of their being able to force PM or other sites to delete posts relevant to Orange Vise is interesting, but I doubt they have much leverage to enforce it. The Orange Vise website is still active at this point.

http://www.orangevise.com/

Stern
03-23-2013, 10:05 AM
Its all crap. Its nothing more than a typical A-Hole (Lawyer) trying to lie and bully someone else. No judge would EVER create a court order stating the phrase "to whom it may concern" ... seriously ???? IF they got a judge to make a court order like this (about as likely as sending a man to Mars .... in a hot air balloon) it would go to the forum server co. They would pull the forum and instruct the mod to remove specific stuff before putting the forum back up.

This is why I think all lawyers, bank and insurance directors, and a few others should be "air dropped" into Afghanistan and told to "practice your trade" ... waste of skin

Spin Doctor
03-23-2013, 10:08 AM
Their website does't have any active links to products. I wonder if there was a clause in Sol's employment agreement about not going into competition with Glacern for a set period after his employment ended. That could account for the lawsuit. Similar to what Buell went through with H-D*. As to vises I actually prefer this type. http://www.quad-i.com/products-vises.html One reason is the fixed jaw is at the front. That way when using DRO's and doing CNC programing if the stop is on the left side you are almost always working in the +/+ quadrant. It does help to eliminate some programing errors due to having to work in +/- or -/-. Yes I know that you can flip the Cartessian (sp) co-ordinates around but then you always aren't working in a vise on the mill. *The non completion clause not a lawsuit

paulsv
03-23-2013, 10:40 AM
Its all crap. Its nothing more than a typical A-Hole (Lawyer) trying to lie and bully someone else. No judge would EVER create a court order stating the phrase "to whom it may concern" ... seriously ???? IF they got a judge to make a court order like this (about as likely as sending a man to Mars .... in a hot air balloon) it would go to the forum server co. They would pull the forum and instruct the mod to remove specific stuff before putting the forum back up.

This is why I think all lawyers, bank and insurance directors, and a few others should be "air dropped" into Afghanistan and told to "practice your trade" ... waste of skin

I doubt very much that it was a lawyer who sent the email to PM. The court issued an order to Orange to do what was necessary to take its advertising and promotion off of, or out of all medial outlets. The order applies to Orange, and doesn't bind anyone but the defendants in that case. (This was apparently after the judge had made a factual finding that the people at Orange had stolen the design from Glacern.) The lawyers in the case understand that it applies only to the defendants in that case, and that the could be sanctioned by the court for mis-using its order. I would guess that someone at Glacern then took it upon themselves to send that to a bunch of websites where the defendant had discussed the Orange vices, to try to intimidate them to remove the discussions about the Orange vice. This is obviously a very highly charged emotional case for the people at Glacern. A lawyer would not send such a demand, because he would understand the first amendment implications. He would not send such a demand by email, would not lead it off with "to whom it may concern," (lawyers being intelligent enough to find the name of the correct party to address a demand to) and would put it on his or her lawfirm's letterhead, if indeed Glacern, a small company, does not have a Legal Department or Chief Counsel, as I suspect.

You see, 90% of the time that a lawyer gets accused of being an a$$hole, it is one of other two people who is actually the a$$hole: either the lawyer's client, doing something stupid like this, or, as in your case, the person doing the accusing. I am a lawyer, as are a number of others who contribute to this site, and I do not appreciate your ignorant comments.

Stern
03-23-2013, 10:55 AM
I will apologize for my comments, as it is not my intent to offend anyone. I am sure that there are many good people out there that are lawyers, and in actuality my distaste is more for the "practice" than the person. I have dealt with MANY lawyers, and in all my experiences they are simply only interested in the golden egg, and dont give a crap about the "person" in question. Nothing better than being on the crap end of a 10 year $800,000.00 lawsuit, where they didnt have a legf to stand on. when the judge finally said "get to trial or I will throw it out" they sent a message saying we are withdrawing the suit. Nice, 10 years, $80,000 in legal costs and for what? To defend myself from a huge corp just so they could play the "lets see if we can bankrupt the guy ?

Yea, they did about 15 years financial damage to me ..... So while I apologize for any comments I made that might have offended you, my views on the whole profession will NEVER be one of anything but contempt. The profession groups I mentioned have done nothing but cause more grief in this world than any thing else.

Again, sorry for my comments, as I judge people by who they are and how they interact with others, not what they do for a living. I will now head to my little shop, where everything works by the real rules of nature, if i make a mistake I pay for it (never pay for something i didnt do) and where mistakes can be fixed and lessons learned (that arnt the "CASH IS KING" messages of the messed up outside world).

J Tiers
03-23-2013, 11:03 AM
I am a lawyer, as are a number of others who contribute to this site, and I do not appreciate your ignorant comments.

In that case you know that your trade is populated by various people..... including this list which is not intended to be complete........

people in it to "do good", i.e. often "community law".

People in it to do good as a public defender.

People doing their job as a general law practitioner, specialist law practitioner, criminal lawyer or even prosecutor

people practicing 'corporate law" and IP law

people who are practicing "corporate law" or "IP" law in a rather predatory, shady and pernicious manner, even though they may usually be technically not violating any laws.

"Ambulance chasers", and the types who advertise "class action suits" where the members of the "class" get ten bucks apiece, and the lawyers get 80 million dollars. These types are often "1% wanna-bees", driving expensive cars in an aggressive manner.

Straight-out dishonest lawyers who are purely in it for the money they can squeeze out of whoever, by whatever means they can convince people is "legal".

.
.


And you know that there are enough of the last three classes of lawyers, getting sufficient publicity, to stain the reputations of the others.

My suggestion to you is not to attack the people who happen to notice this, which is a favorite tactic OF the latter three classes, but rather to do more to clean the profession of the ones who actually DO belong to the last three classes. When "crooked" lawyers are a rare exception, and do not prosper, public opinion will change.

paulsv
03-23-2013, 11:03 AM
I wonder if there was a clause in Sol's employment agreement about not going into competition with Glacern for a set period after his employment ended. That could account for the lawsuit.

Doc- From the description of the complaint that someone posted over at PM, it sounds more serious than a non compete clause. They said that Glacern had alleged that the vise had been designed by Glacern as a Glacern product, and that certain employees (not Sol, but some other named people) stole the design (and perhaps the actual computer it was stored on) and started producing it as the Orange vise. I have no idea if that is actually true (it is just reported as an allegation in a complaint), but apparently the judge found some wrongdoing by Orange somewhere, in order to issue such an order.

loose nut
03-23-2013, 11:09 AM
I am a lawyer, as are a number of others who contribute to this site, and I do not appreciate your ignorant comments.

Ohhh nooooo, not a lawyer infestation. There harder to get rid of than cockroaches. Somebody get a can of raid.:D:D:D




P.S. If you look at the bottom of the PM "legal notification" post about it, it says it is from the Glacern legal dept./lawyer. Just Glacern being heavy handed and trying to remove Orange from the history books.

Mcgyver
03-23-2013, 11:12 AM
Do you guys think Glacern is big enough to have a 'legal department'? come on. they're insiders and someones pissed at someone.


I will apologize for my comments, as it is not my intent to offend anyone. I am sure that there are many good people out there that are lawyers, and in actuality my distaste is more for the "practice" than the person. I have dealt with MANY lawyers, and in all my experiences they are simply only interested in the golden egg, and dont give a crap about the "person" in question. Nothing better than being on the crap end of a 10 year $800,000.00 lawsuit, where they didn't have a legf to stand on. when the judge finally said "get to trial or I will throw it out" they sent a message saying we are withdrawing the suit. Nice, 10 years, $80,000 in legal costs and for what? To defend myself from a huge corp just so they could play the "lets see if we can bankrupt the guy ?

I 100% agree its not right, but the problem's systemic not with the people who are lawyers. If you got rid of all them tomorrow, the exact same problem would replicate itself. look to who's paying their fees and why as to where the problem lies

as to the subject, its easy to imagine scenarios where either side is the villain. Glacern being a bully and stifling competition through unwarranted legal moves, or the upstart acting in direct contravention of employment contracts or share holder agreements (taking know how, customer lists, contacting employees/suppliers, non competes etc). Who knows? Probably shades a grey as they usually are. In the long rung, its BS. if it wasn't Orange it would be someone else....you have to be able to compete

Mcgyver
03-23-2013, 11:30 AM
Straight-out dishonest lawyers who are purely in it for the money they can squeeze out of whoever, by whatever means they can convince people is "legal".
.

I believe that is called estate law (j/j)


My suggestion to you is not to attack the people who happen to notice this,

That is completely unfair. Armed with angst prejudice and ignorance its ok to trash everyone in a profession? Perhaps been on the receiving end of some nasty's, maybe its TV, but you haven't done any research to categorize and judge the profession. A lot of this comes from the fact that lawyers are frequently involved where there is conflict and controversy so there is of course lay people who frequently see them as issue (wrong, the issue is why the other side hired them), but explain how this is anything more than a prejudice and generalization

I know a lot of lawyers. Hard to image a more honest and upstanding group. These would be more corporate types, tax lawyers etc not I-slipped-on-my-steps ambulance chasers so like I any group I get that there are low lifes out there. But condoning categorical statements and prejudices like that is not much different from doing so around physical attributes; its childish and just not right imo.

Your statement that the bar's and law society's should do more to clean up is one I support. but that doesn't excuse condoning erroneous generalizations/prejudices.

paulsv
03-23-2013, 11:35 AM
JTiers- I agree with what you say. In my post, I estimated those last 3 classes as 10%. I get a little frustrated when people call me an a$$hole because of what those 10% do. I bet 10% of the machine shops and machinists out there do shoddy work and are dishonest. I'm not calling YOU rude names, and suggesting that you be dropped out of an airplane because of what they do. And if i did, I bet you might be a little upset. That said, I did over-react a bit. I usually let this kind of stuff slide off my back, but I just quit smoking yesterday, after 40 years, and I am feeling a little testy this morning.

Stern- Your apology was handsomely given, and is completely accepted, and please accept my apology for over-reacting. Believe me, I know how frustrating a situation such as you describe can be. I represent small companies and individuals, who sometimes get that kind of treatment. In many cases, it happens because the plaintiff is lying to the lawyer who is bringing the suit. When the lawyer discovers the lies, the suit gets withdrawn. In one case, a large corporation sued my small client over a patent infringement, to try to keep him from competing. The suit went on for years, even though the large corporation knew or should have known that the patent was invalid. The cost of the lawsuit almost put my client out of business. My law firm worked for many years, (without getting paid, because the client couldn't afford to pay us) and finally convinced the court that the plaintiff's misuse of the court system in this way was, in itself, an anti-trust violation, and my client recovered triple damages (about $20 Million.) They paid all the back bills, and insisted on paying us an un-solicited, totally voluntary bonus, to thank us for carrying them for all those years. Today, that company is very solid and successful, and one of my best clients. So I feel your pain. But please believe me, there are many wonderful, hard working, generous and honest lawyers out there, trying to help people the best they can.

George Bulliss
03-23-2013, 11:39 AM
We received the court order as well, though it came after I left the office yesterday. I have since pulled all of the Orange Vise posts. Orange Vise contacted us a few days ago to request that we pull the banner ad, which we did.

lazlo
03-23-2013, 11:45 AM
You blokes are welcome to vote with you're wallets. The only bloke down here with a Glacern vise. I'll be offering to under write the cost of sending it back. As long as it has a note to stick it up there arse.

I don't think this is entirely Glacern's fault per se -- it's just a typical nasty divorce: Sol (Eric), his Wife and Wife's family apparently formed Glacern.

cuemaker
03-23-2013, 11:49 AM
Wow...a roll over..not what I expected and I am kinda upset about it.


At least the threads and info will live on at PM (where I dont like to go) and apparently a few other websites that have chose to save the threads and make them available.

Based on what I see and have read, I am sorry to have made purchases from Glacern. I was with in a month of buying some milling cutters from them but now I wont.

I am not defending Sol, who may or may not have broken contracts and or laws, but I do not like the looks of Glacern at all in they way I feel they have conducted themselves.

It looks like I am not alone and Glacern will have hurt their HSM base, for whatever percentage of business it represented.

paulsv
03-23-2013, 11:49 AM
Your statement that the bar's and law society's should do more to clean up is one I support. but that doesn't excuse condoning errenouse generalizations/prejudices.

Mcgyver- I agree, and the bar associations could do more, but I think the real solution is to empower judges to penalize mis-use of the legal system. This is rarely done now, and it would go a long way towards curbing abuses.

George Bulliss
03-23-2013, 11:57 AM
Call it a rollover, if you want. However, when I decided to pull Sol's posts, I took into consideration that he contacted us a few days ago to ask that we pull his banner ad to comply with the court order. He obviously has to live by the order and my pulling his posts (not threads) was simply meant as a way to help him comply.

Both companies are advertisers of ours and I don't plan to take sides in the fight.

paulsv
03-23-2013, 11:59 AM
Ohhh nooooo, not a lawyer infestation. There harder to get rid of than cockroaches. Somebody get a can of raid.:D:D:D

Heck, we drink raid for tea!

lazlo
03-23-2013, 12:01 PM
Both companies are advertisers of ours and I don't plan to take sides in the fight.

Shame -- both parties are ruining the brand image/value of both Glacern and Sol.

dfw5914
03-23-2013, 12:05 PM
This whole situation seems kind ironic to me, isn't Glacerns business model basically to duplicate other companies products then undercut them on price by offshoring the bulk of the manufacturing?

George Bulliss
03-23-2013, 12:07 PM
Shame -- both parties are ruining the brand image/value of both Glacern and Sol.

No way for a happy outcome for anyone in a fight like this.

Black Forest
03-23-2013, 12:17 PM
There are three sides to every story. In this case it is Glacerns, Orange and then the truth. There is no way from reading any of the media reports that we can actually know what is going on. I wouldn't be so quick to judge Glacern as a bully until the facts are known. Orange could very well have stepped over a line and then Glacern is right in seeking a remedy. We should wait till we know more to hang someone!

As to the comments about Lawyers, well Paul's figures of 10% seems a little low from my personal experience. Shakespeare had the right idea many hundreds of years ago when he wrote, " The first thing we should do is kill all the lawyers." Lawyers are no more than the hired guns of the wild west. Sure the person that hires them might be an Ahole but the lawyers accept the case or fight or worse yet go to the people and ask for the work as a hired gun. Just think how many politicians are lawyers and that should end the discussion! Paul you might be a great guy and actually trying to do good bye people and be just BUT you would be in the minority in the profession. If you don't like the world view of lawyers than post some facts assembled by a menu of non-partisan panel members. Back up your 10% figure. I bet you can not.

Mcgyver
03-23-2013, 12:46 PM
Mcgyver- I agree, and the bar associations could do more, but I think the real solution is to empower judges to penalize mis-use of the legal system. This is rarely done now, and it would go a long way towards curbing abuses.\

you'd know more about it than I...and I am not a defender of the legal system (our's are close enough for that point). I'm very critical of the legal system. I believe its good and healthy to criticise systems, processes, organizational behaviour, practices, laws etc.....or an individual. What I think is completely offside the generalizations and wholesale slaught of groups. To me thats moving from a rational critique just another form of prejudice. Rarely does the speaker have the extensive first hand knowledge to make such statements with credibility. When you're looking across 100, 1,000's or millions of people the results you get are inevitably are the a result of the system rather than the individual so statements trashing and blaming the people are by definition nonsensical...and usually inflammatory.


Originally Posted by lazlo
Shame -- both parties are ruining the brand image/value of both Glacern and Sol.

isn't that the truth, agreed there's no winners in this

paulsv
03-23-2013, 12:49 PM
Shakespeare had the right idea many hundreds of years ago when he wrote, " The first thing we should do is kill all the lawyers."

....

Back up your 10% figure. I bet you can not.

Shakespeare's character was saying that they should kill all the lawyers if they wanted to take over the country. Shakespeare's line was: ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.'' It was stated by "Dick the Butcher" in the play ''Henry VI.'' Dick the Butcher was plotting with another shady character, Jack Cade, to overthrow the government, and become a tyrant. They thought that the best way to do that was to destroy the rule of law. Shakespeare meant it as a compliment to attorneys and judges because they protect justice in society.

I said that 10% was my ESTIMATE, and it is based on 40 years of actual daily experience in the profession. Actually, I think 10% is kind of a high estimate.

Back up any figure greater than 10%. I bet you can not.

John Stevenson
03-23-2013, 12:59 PM
True story.
I'm not going to supply links but if you search using keywords you will find the stories on the internet and more to the point they are there in perpetuity to stay.

Everything in this postt is absolute truth.

In August 2011 Myford Lathes in the UK closed their doors and held a sale. RGD Tools from Yorkshire, who for years had been selling cheap Indian knock off Myford pattern parts bought all the spares, the drawings, the trading name, Myford, and the rights.

The following week they contacted Ebay UK and had everyone selling Myford pattern parts removed using a VERO which basically says they have the rights to the name.

This affected 3 Ebay sellers, Chronos tools who also, like RDG sold pattern parts, Metoolsonline, trading as Mary Poppins bag and as many know is my wife, and lastly a guy called Jim Marshall who buys genuine Myford lathes, strips them and sell the spares as genuine second hand which they are.

No one had a choice, Ebay just removed all the auctions, Chronos had about 100 items, ME Tools had 8 and Lathe-spares [ Jim Marshall ] had most of his entire sock on as this his his only lively hood. As it was done on a Friday there was no recourse to Ebay.

No-one had actually broken any rules. Under Ebay selling rules which are very clear they use Panasonic as an example.
You cannot advertise Panasonic XXX for sale unless it is genuine. If it's a copy or replacement part you have to advertise as "Suitable for Panasonic XXXX" or "Will fit Panasonic XXXX"

Chronos and ME Tools already applied these rules. Lathe Parts did not have to as he only sold genuine second hand parts.

Jim Marshall was incensed at RDG's attitude and rang me up to see if I wanted to join in him a class act against RDG. I refused as 8 items was not worth it and told Jim I would take RDG on publicly in the forums which I did.

I used 3 forums to start but others cross posted so it finished up on about 7 or 8 international forums.

All I stated were the true facts as listed above, no name calling was entered into.

It went viral. I did not see one post where what they had done was supported, in fact many, many people then posted that if that was their attitude then they would never trade with them again.

RDG then dug themselves into a deeper hole by trying to say it was orchestrated by some of the other dealers and were ridiculed for their efforts. Eventually someone at RDG had the sense to realise they had dug themselves too deep and picked the phone up and asked me what it would take to make it go away.

My reply was remove the VERO and let us go back to how things were before because they had broken the law in getting Ebay to issue the VERO as nothing was advertised incorrectly and also at that time they were not the new owners of Myford. They had agreed to buy but until the name was changed at company house the name still belonged to Chris Moore at Myford Holdings, the real estate arm of the company which they did not buy.

They did apologise for taking a heavy hand but in the three weekend days this saga went on it hurt them badly and because of the internet it's something that will never fully go away.

A.K. Boomer
03-23-2013, 01:24 PM
I don't know what the truth is - but I will say this, I just hate to see anyone who's starting something up with wide eyed enthusiasm and doing it in such a way where you know they've spent a pretty penny and their product looked amazing get squashed by a small legality or technicality,

It's a day and age where this kind of innovation is fading fast and it takes great balls to step up to the plate in this economy - and it's these very people with the great balls that are going to help turn things around ------ so - While I can understand someone that's already been established also protecting their interests - BUT YET - better make damn sure it's some kind of major infringement and not some little petty deal and your just using your clout to shut a little guy down because you can - and because you don't have enough nut-sac to step up to the plate and welcome the competitiveness so that it then may push you further and better your own product... nuf said and not saying that's what's going on - just that if it is im siding with U know who...

on the flip side if the up-start did something blatantly obvious and was totally aware of it then I guess let the chips fall where they may... I suppose were going to find out the finer details sooner or later...

Black Forest
03-23-2013, 01:26 PM
Shakespeare's character was saying that they should kill all the lawyers if they wanted to take over the country. Shakespeare's line was: ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.'' It was stated by "Dick the Butcher" in the play ''Henry VI.'' Dick the Butcher was plotting with another shady character, Jack Cade, to overthrow the government, and become a tyrant. They thought that the best way to do that was to destroy the rule of law. Shakespeare meant it as a compliment to attorneys and judges because they protect justice in society.

I said that 10% was my ESTIMATE, and it is based on 40 years of actual daily experience in the profession. Actually, I think 10% is kind of a high estimate.

Back up any figure greater than 10%. I bet you can not.

Leave it to a lawyer to twist things around and change the intended meaning of my post. Keep going Paul and dig yourself in deeper! As to the ten percent I will let public opinion be my source.

You destroyed an credability you had with your lame defense.

wierdscience
03-23-2013, 01:34 PM
This whole situation seems kind ironic to me, isn't Glacerns business model basically to duplicate other companies products then undercut them on price by offshoring the bulk of the manufacturing?

No,Glacern was apparently buying their stuff from the same Taiwanese vendor as others where.Shars and Teco for example sell almost identical vises under their own name.

What I suspect might have happened was Sol designed what was to become the Orange vise while at Glacern and when the situation there blew up it became an intellectual property dispute.Or this could be former partners who figured out that the brains behind their operation just left the building and now they want to be s---y over it.

dfw5914
03-23-2013, 01:54 PM
Seems like I remember several discussions regarding country of origin of their vises when the first showed up. The claim then was that some significant portion of the manufacturing or value added took place in the U.S..

paulsv
03-23-2013, 01:55 PM
Yes, Black Forest, I am perfectly content to let our previous posts stand as they are, and let readers be the judge.

John Stevenson
03-23-2013, 01:57 PM
Seems like I remember several discussions regarding country of origin of their vises when the first showed up. The claim then was that some significant portion of the manufacturing or value added took place in the U.S..

That must have been sticking the label on :p

SteveF
03-23-2013, 02:05 PM
While I must confess to not having an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, can someone clue me in on what might the "intellectual property rights" on a "proprietary design" of a frikin' vice. Which BTW looks an awful lot like a Kurt vice to me.

Steve

Mcgyver
03-23-2013, 02:36 PM
While I must confess to not having an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, can someone clue me in on what might the "intellectual property rights" on a "proprietary design" of a frikin' vice. Which BTW looks an awful lot like a Kurt vice to me.

Steve

From one point of view of the product itself, you're probably right, however intellectual property isn't just the product design and we don't know what agreements there were between them, who did what or what the spat is about.

For example I came and worked with you, we have standard employment agreement. I leave taking a customer list. The agreement forbids this (and probably the law as well), the employment list is intellectual property and a fight ensues. Obviously I have no knowledge of the situation at hand and only profer that as a 'for instance' of how intellectual property outside of the product could be at the centre of a dispute.....there's probably an endless list of scenarios.

Stern
03-23-2013, 02:55 PM
Thank you, as i said, I have had many personal experiences with stuff like this, and it never goes as it should. In my case, the 3 lawyers for the big guy (Raddison corp, the hotel chain) KNEW the claim was bogus, its all in black and white documents and quotes. The suite took place as the previous owners of the Hotel went into receivership. The new owner wanted 10 times the work done than quoted (was about 80% done at the time) and wanted the remainder of work done in 2 weeks (was about 3 month work left). Because I wasn't willing to change the terms, they brought in someone else (thats a contract breach).

Anyway, my lawyer was a good guy .... BUT ... forgot to mention to me that when I won the case I would probably only get 30-40% of my legal costs back (confirmed by a supreme court judge). The dropped the case when I could no longer afford my attorney (who walked). Best part is I had 5 million liability insurance (for 12 years up to that time) and the insurance company refused to provide legal council. Seems in the 300 page fine print, since the suite didnt use the specific word "damages" in the title, they didnt have to cover it (even though I was covered for non performance). My lawyer suid the insurance company, and I LOST, which cost me 8 grand more.
The suite wasnt just against me, it was against ANYONE that was doing work in the building (even a drywall contractor and company who did nothing more than a verification). Of the group of people sued, only me and the verification company (simplex/ Tyco) actually fought it.

Now of this and all the other dealings I have had, no where did "justice, truth, or honesty" come in. It was a simple matter of Raddison being huge and getting what THEY wanted. $100,000 to them is a 3 day fishing trip, so they couldn't care less what it cost, they got what they wanted, to create financial burden on someone that wouldn't buckle to their power.

I know not all lawyers are bad people, but the profession itself has gotten ridiculous, and every day an example pops up in the media .... seriously .... I buy a Timmie's coffee and spill it on my crotch I can sue THEM for millions ????? Sue THEM for MY stupidity ??? The legal system has got to the point it has NOTHING to do with justice, right, fair ..... its only about MONEY and which lawyer can do the best "dance" in the court room. When it all comes down to it, even the lawyers that I know as friends (yes, have 4 very close friends who are lawyers) know it to be true .... they are just "doing their jobs"

Anyway, enough about my problems, its still no excuse for posting anything that makes someone else uncomfortable (regardless of if it true or not).

lazlo
03-23-2013, 02:56 PM
What I suspect might have happened was Sol designed what was to become the Orange vise while at Glacern and when the situation there blew up it became an intellectual property dispute.

That's what I'm reading out of it too.

wierdscience
03-23-2013, 07:56 PM
Seems like I remember several discussions regarding country of origin of their vises when the first showed up. The claim then was that some significant portion of the manufacturing or value added took place in the U.S..

I think maybe the fasteners,Chinese made Allen cap screws are/were notoriously bad

thaiguzzi
03-24-2013, 04:43 AM
State of the modern world i'm afraid, very sad. Back in the early 90's, after John Bloor had bought the rights to the Triumph motorcycle name and brand, he made all shops including mine take down "the" Triumph logo in our advertising. It did'nt matter that both his "new" Triumph logo and the "old" logo were slightly different, and we sold/made spares and parts for the older Meriden Triumphs, which was a market he was not interested in. We were keeping the old bikes, no longer made, alive and running, he was selling new completely different bikes. Created a lot of bad blood between old and new Triumph shops. I believe nowadays, he has relaxed his position and dealers in the older bikes can still use the original Meriden Logo. Left a bad taste, and i've never forgiven him, and would not support his product. Since then i've always said the "new" Triumphs are not "real" Triumphs. Made in England ? Ha, assembled in England, basically a Z1 engine with a cylinder chopped off. As for the twins... don't get me started. Talk about diluting history.
Mike.
Mike.

.RC.
03-24-2013, 05:30 AM
We received the court order as well, though it came after I left the office yesterday. I have since pulled all of the Orange Vise posts. Orange Vise contacted us a few days ago to request that we pull the banner ad, which we did.

But why, If there was never any need to it is just capitulating to bullying...

Over at PM the "order" was ignored.

PixMan
03-24-2013, 06:44 AM
State of the modern world i'm afraid, very sad. Back in the early 90's, after John Bloor had bought the rights to the Triumph motorcycle name and brand, he made all shops including mine take down "the" Triumph logo in our advertising. It did'nt matter that both his "new" Triumph logo and the "old" logo were slightly different, and we sold/made spares and parts for the older Meriden Triumphs, which was a market he was not interested in. We were keeping the old bikes, no longer made, alive and running, he was selling new completely different bikes. Created a lot of bad blood between old and new Triumph shops. I believe nowadays, he has relaxed his position and dealers in the older bikes can still use the original Meriden Logo. Left a bad taste, and i've never forgiven him, and would not support his product. Since then i've always said the "new" Triumphs are not "real" Triumphs. Made in England ? Ha, assembled in England, basically a Z1 engine with a cylinder chopped off. As for the twins... don't get me started. Talk about diluting history.
Mike.
Mike.

You're bitter, I understand. The new Triumphs are made in both the UK and in Thailand. The facility in Hinckley Leicestershire burned, so Bloor built a new one in half the time it normally takes. The bike built there are assembled with a few "globally sourced parts", but they have completely gone away from the licensed Kawasaki technology and have for over 10 years been manufacturing 100% their own designs. In that UK facility they machine their own engines, transmissions, bend an weld exhausts, fabricate their own frames. They use Nissin and Brembo brakes, Kehin fuel management, Zadi (Italy) for some plastics, and more...just as the Japanese makers do. Now he's built a second factory of nearly the same capabilities right there where you are, in Thailand. They build the liquid cooled parallel twins you don't want to talk about right there, and a few other models as well.

You can't survive by making the same kind of bikes as they did in the 1940's though 1970's. I had two of the old Triumphs, and I'm quite happy that they are not hanging onto technology and mindset that killed the whole British motorcycle and most of the automobile industries.

This bit between the two vise companies is ugly, and no one is going to come looking good. Only the attorneys will get the new house on the lake. It remains to be seen who stole what, and that's for the courts to sort out. It does seem suspicious that "Sol" (Eric) left the company he co-founded and nearly immediately had a fantastic new product. You can't steal intellectual property from your current company and start your own without expecting a defense. On the other hand, can Glacern prove their claim and what right do they have to tell someone they can't make a living with a competitive product. There's been plenty of decisions in both directions.

George Bulliss
03-24-2013, 09:30 AM
But why, If there was never any need to it is just capitulating to bullying...

Over at PM the "order" was ignored.

There is far more to this situation than what you'll find out about by reading either HSM or PM. I could have taken a stand to leave Sol's posts alone and nothing would have happened. However, both sides are trying to get through this as quickly as possible and I felt it was in the best interest of everyone to not create a snag in the process. Both Sol and Glacern have been in touch with us and we are doing what we can to help them get past this.

edit: For those trying to contact me, sorry about my PM box filling, I've cleared it out.

atty
03-24-2013, 01:09 PM
I know not all lawyers are bad people, but the profession itself has gotten ridiculous, and every day an example pops up in the media .... seriously .... I buy a Timmie's coffee and spill it on my crotch I can sue THEM for millions ????? Sue THEM for MY stupidity ??? The legal system has got to the point it has NOTHING to do with justice, right, fair .....

While we're trashing lawyers, maybe we should take a moment to look at the media that reports on them. This particular case is by far the most misquoted statement of facts ever to hit print. It clearly led people to believe that this little old lady obtained a hot cup of coffee from a McDonald's drive-thru window, set it between her legs, and hit the gas. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In fact, she was the passenger and the car was parked. She was wearing sweat pants, set the coffee between her legs, and yes, fumbled it. The 185 coffee was quickly soaked up by the sweat pants and held it against her skin causing 2nd and 3rd degree burns. The jury found her 20% negligent and reduced her $200K award accordingly. The real case is about McDonald's arrogance. Their representative essentially testified that they knew that their customers were unaware they could get 3rd degree burns from their coffee, but they had no plans to change anything. We're McDonald's, and you're NOT. That little performance served to piss off the entire jury and prompt them to hand McDonald's a $2.5 million dollar tongue-lashing. In the end, it was not a bumbling little old lady, but a large, mega-bucks corporation that said "We don't care".

By the by......it was not the lawyers that handed down that verdict, it was the jury.

flylo
03-24-2013, 01:51 PM
Wayne I thought that case lost on appeal & she didn't get any money but I might be wrong?

atty
03-24-2013, 01:56 PM
Wayne I thought that case lost on appeal & she didn't get any money but I might be wrong?

It WAS appealed, but settled for an undisclosed amount. A pretty good story about the real facts can be found here (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm).

The appeal, of course, was over the amount of punitive damages. McDonalds didn't seriously pursue a reduction of the lady's damages. They apparently did learn something from the trial.

Stern
03-24-2013, 01:58 PM
OK, I understand your point, now lets look at it from the other side. Im working in my shop and cutting some steel with my band-saw. Not sure the blade is sharp anymore, so use my tongue to test it. Its sharp and I loose my tongue. No where on my band-saw does it say don't put your tongue on the blade.

This is how the world works now, and why if you watch a prescription add, 5 seconds is the product, 55 seconds are all the "possible side effects". When do people start to take responsibility for their own actions ? do we need to cater to people as if they were all morons with just enough brain capacity to breath ? The McDonald one was just an example, there are millions more, even more stupid ... sue KFC because I got a mouse ... OK, that's nasty ... but how many million is it worth ..... seriously, give me that damn mouse and ill even eat the thing for a few grand.

My point is that today every aspect of human life is dictated by "not getting sued" People bitch about "communism" and such, but we cant do anything without worrying about being sued. Im in Canada, if someone breaks in and I hit the guy, IM going to jail, if he gets bitten by my dog, MY dog gets put down .... its absolutely freaking ridiculous ...... and who made it this way ????? the courts ... NOPE, the lawyers who do nothing more than look for stupid loop holes in things, making people spend BILLIONS on making sure all their packaging is worded just right.

So, don't blame it on the jurors, as they operate from specific instructions. If your stupid enough to burn yourself with something that's hot, you should NOT be paid for it, you should get a slap in the head for thinking someone else should pay you for being an idiot. Where do we draw the line here ..... oh, wait .... we dont have to, we have a thing called "precedent" lol

Stern
03-24-2013, 01:59 PM
It WAS appealed, but settled for an undisclosed amount. A pretty good story about the real facts can be found here (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm).

The appeal, of course, was over the amount of punitive damages. McDonalds didn't seriously pursue a reduction of the lady's damages. They apparently did learn something from the trial.



sure did, if you have money, some idiot will find a way to suck some from you lol

Black Forest
03-24-2013, 02:02 PM
That lady was an idiot and McDonalds shouldn't have had to pay. Coffee is hot. Put it between your legs and "fumble" it then you deserve what you get. For me that is a no brainer. Sorry she got burned of course but she burned herself. McDonalds didn't burn her. If she wants to put something hot between her legs she should wear coffee proof pants.

atty
03-24-2013, 02:27 PM
We're still missing it. It was not about Stella Liebeck getting burned by being stupid. It was about a mega-corporate witness pissing off a jury. We are all human beings, and generally speaking, do not take kindly to an arrogant attitude. I'm not saying that McDonald's decision not to change their coffee ways was not a good marketing decision, nor am I saying that Stella wasn't negligent in fumbling the coffee, but effectively telling a jury that if a few old ladies get 3rd degree burns while we make millions off of our coffee, was obviously not the way to go. The multi million dollar slap on the wrist was about McDonald's attitude, not some lady's stupidity. If we put six citizens in the jury box and piss 'em off, let's not be surprised that they act just like other human beings and deliver a right cross to whomever they think deserves it.

Mcgyver
03-24-2013, 02:39 PM
We're still missing it. It was not about Stella Liebeck getting burned by being stupid. It was about a mega-corporate witness pissing off a jury. We are all human beings, and generally speaking, do not take kindly to an arrogant attitude. I'm not saying that McDonald's decision not to change their coffee ways was not a good marketing decision, nor am I saying that Stella wasn't negligent in fumbling the coffee, but effectively telling a jury that if a few old ladies get 3rd degree burns while we make millions off of our coffee, was obviously not the way to go. The multi million dollar slap on the wrist was about McDonald's attitude, not some lady's stupidity. If we put six citizens in the jury box and piss 'em off, let's not be surprised that they act just like other human beings and deliver a right cross to whomever they think deserves it.

seems to me that's a pretty flawed system then isn't it? I mean you're saying its just about whether you piss off the jury or they like you....not about right/wrong, the facts, who's negligent, justice etc.

Stern
03-24-2013, 02:45 PM
OK, not sure what im missing here ? Is the point "because McDonald's is a rich corp they should pay stupid law suits ? Or is is the fact "a witness pissed off the jury" ? ..... wow, that sure sounds like a good use for the word "justice"

My point was the whole legal system is FUBAR. Concept is good, no arguments there, the "application" these days is totally moronic, and has been made that way by Lawyers who only care about making money, winning for prestige, with NO thought or concern about right/wrong or justice. It no longer a court of law, its a freeking circus, where the jury votes for the best dancing idiot, just like American Idol.

If someone breaks someones legs and gets sued for damages, thats what I would call a normal reasonable use of the legal system ..... not stupid crap like this whose ONLY purpose is to allow someone to get money from someone else, usually for something STUPID.

OH, btw, in case no one thought of it, the reason big corps settle is to just end the crap and get on with life ...... so i guess that's a perfect excuse to squeeze them for what anyone can get. and people wonder why insurance rates are so high (and that's another "system" that's solely based on someones yacht fund, another "parasitic profession")

Maybe one day the legal system will go back to what it was created for ... which isnt to make the rich and idiots richer.

.RC.
03-24-2013, 05:00 PM
If she wants to put something hot between her legs she should wear coffee proof pants.

I am not going there :D:D

Mcgyver
03-24-2013, 05:02 PM
Concept is good, no arguments there, the "application" these days is totally moronic, and has been made that way by Lawyers .

so it is the lawyers fault. What do you predict would happen if you could somehow get rid of all the current ones appoint new ones?

Zero_Divide
03-24-2013, 05:25 PM
We're still missing it. It was not about Stella Liebeck getting burned by being stupid. It was about a mega-corporate witness pissing off a jury. We are all human beings, and generally speaking, do not take kindly to an arrogant attitude. I'm not saying that McDonald's decision not to change their coffee ways was not a good marketing decision, nor am I saying that Stella wasn't negligent in fumbling the coffee, but effectively telling a jury that if a few old ladies get 3rd degree burns while we make millions off of our coffee, was obviously not the way to go. The multi million dollar slap on the wrist was about McDonald's attitude, not some lady's stupidity. If we put six citizens in the jury box and piss 'em off, let's not be surprised that they act just like other human beings and deliver a right cross to whomever they think deserves it.

Is that where those "Don't fold with children inside" signs on baby strollers come from ?

Stern
03-24-2013, 05:35 PM
In a nutshell ... YES. If you removed all and replaced with new ... NOTHING would change. The system is the way the system is, but the way it is now from the time of its inception was dictated by the Lawyers. Even today, it continues to evolve as other "precedents" and procedures (as in dance steps) are used and not objected to.
Dont get me wrong here, we DO need a legal system, but it should be "what is was created for", to uphold truth, justice and equality to all .... It is about as far from that now as a Sandals vacation spot is from Auschwitz. It is no longer doing what it was set up to do, but rather aid the rich and those that hold power. IF the system worked, then there would be no difference between being defended by a 1st year lawyer or a seasoned "laywer" like the one that does high profile rich people cases (OJ for example). Do you think for one microsecond that if OJ had a public defender the outcome would have been the same ??? Really ?

So, while YES the lawyers of past and present created what we have now, its the SYSTEM that is the problem, and those few rich and powerful lawyers that "make the precedents" (as I doubt you will find many made by a PD lol). So, I guess that since the system is broke, how can I blame lawyers themselves for doing things the way the system needs them to be done ? ..... Well, I cant, no more than I can say the Nazi guards at the concentration camps were "just doing their job" ... Does that make it right ? (actually its more right, as if they refused they were killed, lawyers who refuse are just given a boot from the bar)

Uncle O
03-24-2013, 05:49 PM
So I have to ask regarding the coffee....Why serve coffee at 185 degrees ?
Certainly , you cannot drink it at that temperature, so why do it ?

Took the following chart from here.....

http://www.pseg.com/home/education_safety/safety/scalding.jsp

Scalding from Hot Water

Make sure your water heater is set to a safe temperature for home use. Use the industry chart below to provide guidance to avoid scalding.
Check the water temperature before placing a child in the bathtub.
Never leave a child alone or with other young children in the bathtub.

Table of Hot Water Scalding Temperatures and Times:

Water Temperature Setting Exposure Time Effects of Exposure to Hot Water at High Temperatures
Water at 100 degF or below See Safety Note Most water heaters are unlikely to scald an adult occupant
Water at 120 degF 5 minutes 2nd & 3rd degree burns on adult skin
Water at 130 degF 30 seconds 2nd & 3rd degree burns on adult skin
Water at 140 degF 5 seconds 2nd & 3rd degree burns on adult skin
Water at 150 degF 1.5 seconds 2nd & 3rd degree burns on adult skin
Water at 160 degF .5 second 2nd & 3rd degree burns on adult skin

This is why they got sued. Any halfway competent moron knows that at 185 degrees, any spillage onto any skin is going to cause injury, and most likely serious injury....

You can't drink it at that temp., why serve it at that temp....idiots.

Stern
03-24-2013, 07:08 PM
Well, it probably has to do with the optimum brewing temp for coffee itself. You also cant drink soup at 210 deg (even knocking 10 deg off for cooling) but most people follow the instructions and "bring to boil". So, should we sue the oven makers for creating evil devices that can make water boil ? So, do the coffee places use a lower temp ? nope, just put "CAUTION _ HOT" on the cups for all the morons that didnt realize coffee is served hot lol

The only idiot is the one that "ALLOWS" 180 deg liquid to come into contact with there skin.

Anyway, must run, need to sue Miller, Aklunds and Lincoln for the burn I got from a slag drop while welding.

flylo
03-24-2013, 07:24 PM
I remember when Harley tried to trademark "HOG" & even the sound V twin Harleys make. Give me a break!

lazlo
03-24-2013, 07:36 PM
seems to me that's a pretty flawed system then isn't it? I mean you're saying its just about whether you piss off the jury or they like you....not about right/wrong, the facts, who's negligent, justice etc.

I think we've pretty much established that with cases like Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson. Jurors are chosen to be stupid and/or gullible.

In the case of McDonald's coffee, it became a superficial symbol of how screwed up our legal system had become. As the link Atty posted explains, the actual details of the case were far more complicated...

flylo
03-24-2013, 07:41 PM
I'm sure there are good & bad lawyers as any field. When I was in the lumber business our insurance company told about lawyers holding seminars to learn how to buy a condo or tract house in large complexes just to tear them apart pc by pc to find mold or several other defects so they could start a class action lawsuit & sue ANYONE that had anything to due with the project even if they had nothing to due with the problem. Suppliers, devery services, & on & on. Our ins co fought the 1st 28 cases & lost, so from them on they settled out of court. Now that is about as low as it gets in my book.:mad:

lazlo
03-24-2013, 07:44 PM
I'm sure there are good & bad lawyers as any field.

Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything (lawyers, doctors, engineers, teachers, machinists, mechanics...) are crap.

Mcgyver
03-24-2013, 07:49 PM
In a nutshell ... YES. If you removed all and replaced with new ... NOTHING would change.

exactly. So the problems are systemic, not the people. As soon as you start blaming people and their acting in the their best interests when a problem is really systemic, you're moving far way from the real causes and possible solutions.

flylo
03-24-2013, 08:27 PM
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything (lawyers, doctors, engineers, teachers, machinists, mechanics...) are crap.
Amen Brother! Now that I believe:)

GNM109
03-24-2013, 08:37 PM
Its all crap. Its nothing more than a typical A-Hole (Lawyer) trying to lie and bully someone else. No judge would EVER create a court order stating the phrase "to whom it may concern" ... seriously ???? IF they got a judge to make a court order like this (about as likely as sending a man to Mars .... in a hot air balloon) it would go to the forum server co. They would pull the forum and instruct the mod to remove specific stuff before putting the forum back up.

This is why I think all lawyers, bank and insurance directors, and a few others should be "air dropped" into Afghanistan and told to "practice your trade" ... waste of skin

First, thank you for the kind words regarding lawyers.

You are right about one thing. Unless a party is given notice of a court proceeding and given an opportunity to respond and attend any hearings, such a court order would be inapplicable to that party.

In order for a court to have jurisdiction over a party, proper notice must be given. The order would not affect anyone other than properly noticed persons.

adatesman
03-24-2013, 08:37 PM
Well, it probably has to do with the optimum brewing temp for coffee itself.

Um, no, it doesn't. It has *entirely* to do with the fact that they made a decision to keep the coffee at near-boiling temperatures so that it would still be hot half an hour later when the person pulling through the drive-thru gets to their destination and starts drinking it.


As the link Atty posted explains, the actual details of the case were far more complicated...

That's putting it mildly. IIRC there were many surgeries involved in mitigating the burn damage. Had McD's been serving coffee at normal drinking temperature it would have just scalded, not resulted in an 8 day hospital stay and reconstructive surgery. On a related note, they had received over 700 complaints/minor injuries about the coffee temperature over the previous decade. It was a conscious business decision on their part, for which they properly paid.

BTW, even the presiding *judge* said that McD's was engaging in "willful, wanton, and reckless behavior".

Stern
03-24-2013, 11:16 PM
Well, i guess everyone has their opinions. As I have a buddy that makes coffee for a living I was instructed to the proper way to brew a coffee, and it wasnt at 110 deg F. This is the whole problem and you have just confirmed the mentality used in courts ......

BTW, even the presiding *judge* said that McD's was engaging in "willful, wanton, and reckless behavior".

So, basically they made the coffee really hot so people would be hurt by it .... seriously ? Could care squat about what a Judge said, as its meaningless. I defy ANY lawyer to publically state that they have NEVER cringed at getting one judge over another. I have heard it so many times personally, "oh, he is a ball breaker, he is in a bad mood, this judge is nice". Gee I figured they should all "perform the same" lol yea right.

I don't like to see anyone get hurt, but trying to blame someone for someone elses careless actions is what its all about, not that they made the coffee too hot (don't like it, DON'T BUY IT). MANY things that are sold can cause harm. What if she bought a gun and it went off when she put it in her pants (and this has happened to people) .;... should Smith and Wesson be sued ? YEA, the coffee was hot, but the seller didn't dump it in her lap. Maybe you feel differently, but I believe that once a product is sold and passed to someone, its THERE responsibility to handle it in an appropriate manner to stay safe.

Just another examp0le of the "legal way to cloud an issue", subterfuge, misdirection, make the victim feel like the criminal (she was asking for it).

Lets call it for what it is, she spilled coffee on herself, simple accident .... her fault, no one elses. This is whats wrong with the whole system, no one ever wants to take responsibility for their own actions, so much easier to blame someone else .... Typical

wierdscience
03-24-2013, 11:25 PM
That's putting it mildly. IIRC there were many surgeries involved in mitigating the burn damage. Had McD's been serving coffee at normal drinking temperature it would have just scalded, not resulted in an 8 day hospital stay and reconstructive surgery. On a related note, they had received over 700 complaints/minor injuries about the coffee temperature over the previous decade. It was a conscious business decision on their part, for which they properly paid.

BTW, even the presiding *judge* said that McD's was engaging in "willful, wanton, and reckless behavior".

Coffee at most restaurants is billed as being "Hot,Fresh Coffee" not much market for "luke-warm stale coffee" kind of like nobody wants "light-duty brake pads".Everybody,at least thinking adults know coffee is *hot* regardless of whether it's 130* or 185*.

In that light doesn't clamping a Styrofoam cup of coffee between ones knees knowing full well it's hot qualify as "willful, wanton, and reckless behavior" as well?I don't think she was only 20% liable as the court ruled.

J Tiers
03-25-2013, 12:09 AM
Um, no, it doesn't. It has *entirely* to do with the fact that they made a decision to keep the coffee at near-boiling temperatures so that it would still be hot half an hour later when the person pulling through the drive-thru gets to their destination and starts drinking it.



And put it in a foam cup so that a freaking hour later, long after you have painfully forced your dry fries down your parched throat, you can finally drink it. If you try before that, you will have literally blisters on your tongue and all over the inside of your mouth.... been there, profanely told them where to sticjk their coffee, and nearly helped them do it. The "restaurant" managers should be made to pull a cup and drink the whole thing right away.... maybe that would get them to learn.

NOW, I NEVER get fast food coffee, KNOWING that I won't be able to drink it until long after the food is either eaten, or is stone cold (and so way less appetizing that it was hot, if that is even possible, given how bad most is).

Besides, it's really bad coffee anyway.... weak, tasteless coffee, but strong on the acidity.

yes the coffee is hotter than heck.... just short of 212F/100C and no reason for that at all. If you were to spill it on yourself, yes you would get 2nd degree burns, and probably in a very bad place. In the car, what can you do? You can't get up and get the coffee off you, you are doubled up in a seat with nowhere to go..... your clothes hold the boiling coffee against your skin for maximum damage. They used to pour boiling water (and oil) on people assaulting castles.....

The point is that spilling coffee is a forseeable event, and if you are not expecting the coffee to be that hot, well then, there you are.

besides, if the minimum wage dork in teh place doesn't get the cover on straight, you are probably going to spill it, unless you spot that before you pick it up.

thaiguzzi
03-25-2013, 01:29 AM
[QUOTE=PixMan;839716]You're bitter, I understand. The new Triumphs are made in both the UK and in Thailand. The facility in Hinckley Leicestershire burned, so Bloor built a new one in half the time it normally takes. The bike built there are assembled with a few "globally sourced parts", but they have completely gone away from the licensed Kawasaki technology and have for over 10 years been manufacturing 100% their own designs. In that UK facility they machine their own engines, transmissions, bend an weld exhausts, fabricate their own frames. They use Nissin and Brembo brakes, Kehin fuel management, Zadi (Italy) for some plastics, and more...just as the Japanese makers do. Now he's built a second factory of nearly the same capabilities right there where you are, in Thailand. They build the liquid cooled parallel twins you don't want to talk about right there, and a few other models as well.

You can't survive by making the same kind of bikes as they did in the 1940's though 1970's. I had two of the old Triumphs, and I'm quite happy that they are not hanging onto technology and mindset that killed the whole British motorcycle and most of the automobile industries.

I appreciate what you are saying. But those new bikes have no soul, no character, man. My motorcycle tastes are like my machine tools - old iron. History. Parts made by men on clapped out manual machine tools. designed on drawing boards with sharp pencils. No cad/cam, no CNC. Motorcycles are/were not the same as cars, washing machines, tv sets ie consumer appliances. They are/were even more than a "durable". In many ways, i'm just a dinasaur in the modern world.
regards,
Mike.

flylo
03-25-2013, 01:41 AM
I love Tim Hortons & we just got 2 in Kazoo So it's always my treat to get an XL coffee w/8 creams & a couple splenda. Even with that 1/3 of the cup filled with cream it's so hot in those paper cups I have to switch coffee & cane hands a couple hands before getting to the vehicle. I'm not complaining but you can bet I'm not letting the family jewels hold the coffee for me! :o