I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code. [LWN.net]

I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code.

Posted May 19, 2003 22:41 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code. by dbhost
Parent article: Torvalds Suggests DiBona for SCO Panel (Linux Journal)

Except coffee isn't supposed to be SCALDINGLY hot. And McD's had had several warnings for serving coffee at about 10 degrees above the normal temperature.

And rumour has it (the final settlement is apparently sealed) that the LARGE award was basically just McDs paying the (not insubstantial) medical bills. I agree coffee is supposed to be hot. But not so hot that it causes serious injury.

Cheers,
Wol

to post comments

Coffee

Posted May 20, 2003 13:41 UTC (Tue) by mwilck (subscriber, #1966) [Link] (1 responses)

Well if I make coffee at home, I usually do that with boiling water (I recently read the water should have 94°C for optimal aroma). I assume the physics of making coffee are pretty similar on both sides of the Atlantic. Thus any reasonable person should expect a fresh coffee to be hot (close to boiling temperature, actually), and take care not to spill it.

Sorry, European Way of Thinking. That was the point of the previous poster before the discussion went OT: Europeans expect just about ANYTHING from U.S. courts, no matter how unreasonable it appears for old-world minds. This holds for the SCO case, too.

Coffee

Posted May 20, 2003 16:16 UTC (Tue) by virtex (subscriber, #3019) [Link]

I can't speak for coffee since I'm not a coffee drinker, but if I ever spill boiling hot McDonalds orange juice on myself, then by God I'm going to sue.

*cough*

McDonalds coffee case [OT]

Posted May 20, 2003 18:18 UTC (Tue) by Ray (guest, #11342) [Link]

You don't need to rely on rumors, the details of the case are readily available via google. The woman got thrid degree burns, was in physical therapy for eight weeks, and in the end was paid less than the cost of her medical bills. Search on 'superheated mcdonalds coffee' to pull up a number of links on the case.

And, one of the primary points leading to the verdict hinged on the fact that McDonalds had roughly 700 prior cases of injury due to coffee, and did nothing about it. That changes it from an accident, to willfull negligence.