Jerry,

>>>"It was never the object of patent laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax on the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of unknown liability lawsuits and vexatious accounting for profits made in good faith."
>>> --U.S. Supreme Court, Atlantic Works vs. Brady, 1882
>>
>>Yet I've heard about the website which gathered a lot of mathematical stuff, submitted by volunteers, and then someone published it all as a book and managed to get a copyright on the content.
>
>Yes. It was a kid who began his websit project, The MathWorld, in high school. He kept it up through college. He created a lot of the content and site visitors created a lot of the content. While he was in college, IIRC, he had lots of requests to get a publisher to print a paper version. So he contacted CRC (Chemical Rubber Company) and they smoozed him with the standard contract. He didn't read it. Now, after being offline for a year, they are back on line, but had to pay CRC for 'lost sales" and 'future sales". Further, every new addition to MathWorld become the property of CRC, no matter who contributes it. They have to sign a standard CRC assignment of copyright and ownership. The details of this disgusting ripoff is the the site. I will never buy another article from the CRC, the Handbook included.
>
>http://mathworld.wolfram.com
>
>>
>>Theoretically, with a few top-notch lawyers, you could claim a patent on fire or wheel, as the direct descendant of the original inventor.
>
>This approach is being used by MS and its allies to block Open Source projects. Right now, for example, Apple is claiming that the PNG format violates one of the 1992 patents. So, there is a big search for prior art... etc....
>
>>
>>My opinion remains the same - if anything screws up the American way of life, it will be the American legal system.
>
>Exactly. Lizard lawyers, croney judges, greedy plaintifs.
>
>>The extreme event which showed the paradox was a storm last year, when my wife and daughters went swimming to the lake (operated by the county). I was supposed to pick them after work, but the storm hit just after four. The storm wasn't really that much, and they thought they'd just stay away from the rain, under the roof of the restaurant terrace. But no, the personnel insisted that everyone should leave. They had no money with themselves, didn't know my phone on the job, eventually hitched a ride home.
>>
>>What's the point: the last thing you want to do at such a weather is drive through a forest - visibility's low, road is slippery, branches can fall off. Yet they pushed everyone out instead of giving them shelter, so nobody gets hurt on the premises and will not sue them. If they get killed on the road, it's their problem.
>
>One of my former clients was also the risk accessor for his company. He told me of several examples of legal abuse. A couple were outstandingly stupid, but the companies envolved had to pay off.
>
>One was about a guy who injured his hand on a table saw. The motor on the saw was not Sears motor. It had been replaced. The guard on the saw was of another brand, but had been disabled. The switch on the moter was jury rigged. The wheels were replacements. The frame of the table saw had a Sears logo on it, and had been broken and welded more than once. The logo was of a model which had been discontinued 20 years previously. The guy sued Sears and won 1.8 Million.
>
>Another was about a farmer who was painting his barn durning January (why paint in january I don't know) and had propped up his extension latter against the barn, but on a fozen cow pie. The next day it was warm enough for the cow pie to thaw. While he was on the ladder the cow pie 'lubricated' the feet of the ladder and allowed it to fall down, injuring the farmer. He won over 2 Million because the latter didn't have a sign specifically warning him against placing the foot of the ladder on frozen cow pies.
>
>The final one I'll mention envolved a corvett hitting the side of a Rainbow bread truck. The Corvett driver was made quadraplegic and sued Rainbow Bread.
>He won 3.4 Million. The problem was this: the driver was a car thief and was being persued by police for stealing that Corvett. He was approaching an overpass but lost control and drove down the embankment beside the overpass and into the near lane of an interstate hiway, hitting the Rainbow Bread truck. The bread truck driver was injured too. I never heard if he sued the theif or his employer.
>
>My friend told me of other cases, but these are even worse than the famous McDonald hot coffee incident.
>JLK


Here's an even better one. I'll try and get all the facts correct..

A fellow causes a wreck where a passenger in the 2nd automobile is killed and the driver is seriously injured. The driver of the first automobile was intoxicated if I remember correctly but was not seriously injured. The insurance company here in Utah (we're a no fault state) could have paid off the minimum $25,000 dollar coverage to the injured and essentially been done with it.

Well, the insurance company somewhere inside itself in some risk analysis group, for some reason determined that they were not going to pay off. Evidently, the drunk driver was a repeat offender.

The offending driver essentially was being told by the insurance company to go pound sand. The offending driver and the injured driver and estate of the killed passenger joined forced and sued the insurance company, based on the insurance company's not regarding their own contracts. They had an agreement that if they won the injured driver and estate would take 90% of the settlement (after lawyers fees 'natch. <g>) and the offending driver would take 10% for allowing the hurt folks to be a part of his lawsuit.

The case went to the Utah Supreme Court on appeal when the jury awarded the plaintiffs 140 million dollars in judgements and so forth.

They won.

So... The fellow who killed someone and hurt another because he was drunk ends up with 14 million dollars minus lawyers fees. Say their 30% (standard) and 70% of 14 million is $9,800.000. Each of the others would get around 48,000,000 which kind of makes it all 'right' IMO.

Tax free...

Go figure.. 9.8 million for killing someone while intoxicated...

What we couldn't figure out was what legal precident the insurance company was trying to protect. In the whole process they violated enough others to end up having to pay a whopping amount. We think that they were calculating that the jury would see the stupidity of the drunk driver and toss the case out but they didn't account for the offended jury's reaction to their attempt to trample the drunk's contractual rights..

Dumb insurance company actuaries and lawyers I guess.