Mothers sued over clay bar

Michael H · 11-29-01, 05:23

See: http://www.carwash.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=27555

FLONI · 11-29-01, 06:35

they already won a 3.6 mil against mark V....now going after Mothers too and others....funny if they are right and got ripped off....because Mothers is one of the better if not best of the clay IMHO....i couldnt see them doing that but you never know....

Brad4rdHay · 11-29-01, 07:10

can you say, lawsiut happy.

Scooter · 11-30-01, 07:55

I would not say they are lawsuit happy. the way the Patent system works is that if the person that holds the patent does not actively seek to maintain it by actively suing whoever is breaking it, they can lose it. What it means in plain speak is that patent enforcement is up to the holder of the patent.

Cybercowboy · 11-30-01, 08:13

At least this company (Auto Wax) actually makes clay. When I worked in the CTI world (Computer Telephony Integration) my company got "I'm gonna sue" letters all the time from lawyers who had simply gone out and bought obscure patents that related peripherally to CTI. Then they would send out scads of letters hoping at least some would contact them back to settle out of court. Weasles and skunks, all of them. A pox on their house. Usually they didn't even know what your company did - they would get your name from trade show vendor lists. They assumed that if you showed a product at a CTI trade show then you must be infringing on one of their worthless patents.

We also got sued by a couple of companies and had to pay royalties to them (out of court settlement...) We spent over 1M dollars in legal fees and ended up having to pay about 100k royalties. The only people making any money at this game is the laywers. And these patents were so old and moldy (one of them was a patent for using DTMF (touch-tone) keys to make a computer record audio onto cassette tapes) We never used tapes but no matter, you never know what a jury is going to do.

The Auto Wax company apparently invented clay and if they patented it properly, deserves to get a license fee for use of their invention. That's what a patent is all about. Sucks when you are on the receiving end of litagation, though. Nothing like having a marshall show up at your door to serve you with a supena.

TortoiseAWD · 11-30-01, 10:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Scooter
I would not say they are lawsuit happy. the way the Patent system works is that if the person that holds the patent does not actively seek to maintain it by actively suing whoever is breaking it, they can lose it. What it means in plain speak is that patent enforcement is up to the holder of the patent.

Actually, must actively defend trademarks, but this is not true of copyrights or patents. For example, the GIF standard had been in use for many years before UniSys decided to try to make some $$$ off of their patent.

"I Am Not A Lawyer", but this is my understanding of it . . .

Tort

Guess My Name · 11-30-01, 10:29

With a name like TORT are you sure you are not a lawyer? LOL

For lawyers in the house What is the proper def. of TORT anyway I forget. And I promise no lawyer bashing since we have one in my family.

Cybercowboy · 11-30-01, 11:41

but I play one on TV...

The thing about pursuing your patents is this: If you sit on your patent for a period of time while others are possibly infringing on it, you have just wounded any potential lawsuit severly. Basically, you have to prove that you have diligently pursued infringers or you lose some standing in court. I had this explained to me by a high-powered laywer once and I am sure that I have totally butchered this, but that's what I took from it.

Therefore, if UniSys knowingly allowed their GIF patent to be infringed and only decided to litigate when there was money to be made, they are already on the losing side of the lawsuit - unless they can prove that they didn't know it was being infringed prior to the suit.

TortoiseAWD · 11-30-01, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Guess My Name
With a name like TORT are you sure you are not a lawyer? LOL

For lawyers in the house What is the proper def. of TORT anyway I forget. And I promise no lawyer bashing since we have one in my family.

From http://www.dictionary.com:

"Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought."

So, if I understand it correctly, an automobile accident in which one of the parties was negligent/liable would be an example of a tort. In my case, it's a nick I've had since gradeschool, short for "Tortoise" . . . I wasn't exactly the fleetest of foot.

Tort

bretfraz · 11-30-01, 01:20

A political subject that comes up every national election.

Remember the lady who spilled hot coffee on her crotch and sued McDonalds for her injuries? That falls under "tort" in legal circles. Basically, she (well, her attorney) convinced a jury that McDonalds willfully neglected to inform the lady that the coffee was so hot it could burn her if spilled. And she won a judgement.

Tort reform is supposed to limit the kind of lawsuit and judgements of those suits. The concept is that prices increase everytime a company has to defend itself in a tort-related suit. So, someone does something stupid or negligent, everyone else pays for it.

But attorney love this because this is where the megabucks are.

Such is life in modern America.