Pepsi Told To Pay Over A Billion Dollars For 'Stealing' The Idea For Bottled Water
from the the-world-has-gone-mad dept
Ben was the first of a few folks who sent in the story that Pepsi has been told to pay $1.26 billion (with a b) for supposedly "stealing" the idea for filtered bottled water. Seriously. Two men claim they came up with the idea in 1981 to bottle water this way and approached Pepsi distributors with the idea. They say that Pepsi "stole" their trade secrets when it launched a bottled water line, Aquafina. Of course, Aquafina was launched in the mid-nineties, a decade and a half after this conversation supposedly took place. The $1.26 billion is something of a joke as well. It's a default judgment because a Pepsi secretary apparently forgot to pass on the letter alerting them to the lawsuit, so they didn't respond. Even so... there's so much wrong with this. First, $1.26 billion? For the "idea" of filtered bottled water? And for a lawsuit filed nearly thirty years after the alleged conversation? Nearly fifteen years after the product came to market? Yeah, that makes sense...Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bottled water, ideas, trade secrets
Companies: pepsi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Coke's The One...
Now, there's no market for this invention *YET* but there will be, oh yes, there certainly will be.
(Dr Evil Laugh) Bawhahaha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coke's The One...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coke's The One...
To complete my masterful plan, all I need to do is convince companies that toilets (like water fountains) are an un-needed expense that shouldn't be paid for by the company. As a result, I will sell portable single-use toilets at point-of-purchase displays everywhere.
All I need to do is convince the masses (like Charles Joyce and James Voigt did with water) that toiletries are a right and not a privilege and should be paid for either through my vending machine or through my lawfully approved point of purchase products, and also jam through congress a bill to strengthen fines for public indecency.
I will be rich! Rich I tells ya! Buhahaha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Coke's The One...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Coke's The One...
All your pee belong to me. 25% royalty on 25 cents per wee, times three a day, times 300M people.
The best part is that coffee houses will get them installed for FREE to attract customers into their stores.
Don't you know what success smells like?? It smells like a QUADZILLIONARE! ME!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coke's The One...
more like piss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coke's The One...
"Read the Terms & Conditions before using this facility"
In five years, we'll also get a DEA grant that will allow us to branch out and also install water sampling equipment to test for drug use which will be available to your employer for a small fee! It will be like redlight cams, but you'll never know what hit you until it's too late!
RICH! YES! RICH! Bahaha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Coke's The One...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Coke's The One...
I'm schlepping it to Boehner next week! I'm told all I need to do is show up with a wheelbarrow full of cash and he'll say whatever I want him to!
Boy, he'll be surprised when it's not money, but a wheelbarrow full of wee! He'll just have to imagine it as Moolah!
Aaah. The smell of cash!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Coke's The One...
Considering that the patent office doesn't seem to care too much about prior art anymore, that shouldn't be a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coke's The One...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coke's The One...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coke's The One...
http://www.volunteertv.com/news/headlines/42368662.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coke's The One...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coke's The One...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coke's The One...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bottles of urine
That's where Red Bull came from...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i think perrier has been around since the late 1800's.
and they did:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perrier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah ha!
See, my innovation is to build the bottle first...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What exactly is wrong with this ? - $1.26 billion for a company which has so much respect for the law they don't even show up in court ? Did the excuse "I just forgot..." or "the dog ate it" ever excuse you your homework from school ?.
Filtered bottled water is not obvious - who would have thought that Americans are dumb enough to pay such a huge premium for a water product they can get from the tap in their homes (and only Americans do that - it failed in Europe).
Suing years after the infringement is not uncommon and there are lots of possible reasons for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Filtered bottled water is not obvious
The case is simply ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Filtered bottled water is not obvious
Perhaps they simply didn't realize the seriousness of someone suing them over the idea of PUTTING WATER IN A CONTAINER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Filtered bottled water is not obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Filtered bottled water is not obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, $1.26 billion for an *idea*.
Did the excuse "I just forgot..." or "the dog ate it" ever excuse you your homework from school ?.
No doubt, Pepsi screwed up in not showing up, but not showing up doesn't justify the award.
Filtered bottled water is not obvious
Are you really insisting that these two guys were the only ones who came up with it?
who would have thought that Americans are dumb enough to pay such a huge premium for a water product they can get from the tap in their homes (and only Americans do that - it failed in Europe).
Perhaps that's because of the *marketing* not the idea.
Suing years after the infringement is not uncommon and there are lots of possible reasons for that.
Name one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No it's a default judgment against the party that doesn't show, not an evaluation of the idea.
"...doesn't justify the award."
Yes it does - contempt for the legal system is serious, and the default judgment follows the rules.
"Are you really insisting that these two guys were the only ones who came up with it?"
You only need to be first not the "only", and that is for the parties to the lawsuit to show not me.
"Name one."
Do your own homework it's not difficult - or did you just forget ?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I hate to point out something that other people have pointed out, but these two yahoo's are not the first to have the idea.
Aside from Perrier, Evian has been selling bottled water since the early 1900's, and they have been selling water in plastic bottles since the late 1960's. It's difficult to believe that two guys in the 80's came up with the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, Pepsi, like any other public corporation is required by law to have an agent for service of court documents in any state in which it does business. So, if these dopes just dropped it on a secretary's desk instead of doing the due diligence to locate the listed agent for service, then service was improperly performed, which would more than validate a motion to vacate judgment.
Once that happens then the case begins in earnest. So before you go off half-cocked ranting about Pepsi's deep-seated contempt for all that is just and good, try to learn a little about what the hell you're talking about first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pepsi is them served with Lawful notice of the Judgment by Default...and then they want to scream, "we had no notice."
Sorry, Federal Court is so much different than state courts. See, the Court would not have Granted the Default Judgment without Proof of proper service.
All Pepsi can do is...1) try to settle out of court with the plaintiff's, 2) put the Seceratary on a Longggggggg vacation, and 3) find their Registered Agent, buy a new rope and hang him.
How hard could it have been to FAX the summons over to the Company's Lawyers and then mail it to them overnight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you read even some of these comments you would have seen several bottled water companies named that have been doing this since the late 1800's and early 1900's. So they were first.
"Do your own homework it's not difficult - or did you just forget ?."
No homework has been done and one cannot be found, you use this line because you know there is not a case in which this is true and therefor have to try and insult others instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and this is the mentality of intellectual property maximists. They think that EVERY idea is non obvious and that ALL ideas deserve monopoly rents.
This is just more evidence that intellectual property is not about what's best for society but it's about giving special interest groups more control over the masses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
EXCEPT, the statute of limitations on the contract would have run a long, long, longlonglong, long time ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm, I don't think "the statute of limitations" generally covers contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It can cover certain clauses within contracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations
Hey, thanks for correcting me, I learned something new!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In California for instance, it's two years for an oral agreement and 4 years for a written one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for the thoughtful correction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Basically, you can't expect the court to try 30 year old evidence on a tort that you sat around and waited a good 15 years to pile up damages on, when it's pretty clear to everybody that you should have spoken up way back when. At some point they're going to say you've done nothing about it for too long.
There are exceptions. I don't you'll find them in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you think wrong. Damn near every civil cause of action has a statute of limitations tied to it, breach of contract inclusive. Even first year law students know that a failure to timely file a cause of action within the "SoL" will create a defense to enforcement. Feel free to look up the statutes of limitations in your local jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey Wilton,
Why are you such an asshole? The poster already admitted he was mistaken before you went off on him. What, you smelled blood in the water and just couldn't resist? Typical lawyer, you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you such an asshole? The poster already admitted he was mistaken before you went off on him. What, you smelled blood in the water and just couldn't resist? Typical lawyer, you are.
Yep. Best I remember, he works for the entertainment industry. So you better be careful calling him names or anything because he probably covert gov't connections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But this is just more evidence of how broken intellectual property laws are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it's not. It's just evidence of how dumb some litigants can be.
Moreover, I find it very specious of you to claim that this is evident of broken IP laws when you don't even know the identity or the content of the IP law that is being asserted in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One, filtering water that you plan to put in bottles and sell at a later date is pretty much the high water mark (pardon the pun) of obvious. Unless you're selling algae as a health food, that is.
Two, Bottled water failed in Europe? You haven't actually been there, have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, this is not an infringment issue, it is trade secret. Quite different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, because over the past 100 or so years, no wine, liquor, beer, juice or milk company has every filtered their specific liquid and put into a bottle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, what? It seem patently obvious to me, no pun intended.
Beside, the prior art is copious. I remember being able to buy filtered bottled water in the early seventies. I remember reading instruction in a science experiment book written in the '40s where they recommended purchasing bottles of filtered water for some of the experiments.
So, even if not obvious, it's been around for a very, very long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would actually go so far as to say that bottled water, the kind that is portable, not in 3 gallon jugs, was almost invited in Europe it's such a common staple. In fact, to this day if you go a restaurant, they will ask you if you want a bottle of water, something I've never even encountered in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Waiting for brain dead shill to say
"Yes, but bottled water is an obvious idea now but it wasn't back then."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Yes, but bottled water is an obvious idea now but it wasn't back then.""
Wait, the brain dead poster on Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 10:23am already said something to that extent. I'm too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
only fools and litigators?
This was on an "only fools and horses" episode where they sold bottled tap water. Apparently first broadcast in 1992: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Nature%27s_Son_(Only_Fools_and_Horses)
If Pepsi started selling bottled tapwater in the mid nineties perhaps they could claim to be taking inspiration from DelBoy? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gotta love default judgements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: gotta love default judgements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: gotta love default judgements
A default judgment generally does not require an appeal, especially when there's a deficiency in service. The likely procedure would be a motion to vacate the default judgment based upon the service deficiency, followed by the appropriate responsive pleading. At that point the case goes forward as though the default was never entered.
Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer. I am definitely not your lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, y'know what? If that's the case, when the case was presented you'd think the judge would have dismissed it as being "just plain silly" (I'm assuming there's a legal term that corresponds to that, although I have to admit I've seen no evidence so far.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The general rule of procedure in an adversarial court system is that the court does not act of it's own initiative except in very specific situations. If there is not a responsive filing to initiate the court's denial of a default, then in most cases, only a clear procedural deficiency would prevent the default from being entered.
I am not a lawyer. I just correct their mistakes. I am definitely not your lawyer, so you are responsible for your own actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear USA
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear USA
This...is...not...a...patent...issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
starting in 1920 and refining a business model 50 years later to maximize profits, sounds like some damn prior art. And eliminates the "thats just some europeans dipping milk bottles in the glacier water, so its not filtered" argument.
I would imagine this gets filtered somewhere along the line because holding buckets over the geyser would burn a bit and make for some gritty, chunky water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hey!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sliced Bread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oink, my belt just broke!!!!
If someone from Pepsi had actually shown up, and it was a male, it probably would have cost Pepsi another 3.2 billion.
What kind of system has a default judgment amount that high.
I think I will sue Pepsi for shitty tasting product, and when they don't show up I will get a nice cool 1.26 Billion deposited to my Swiss Bank account.
What an f'd up world we live in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
correction...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not about "bottling" the water
I forget who did what, but if I recall, each took their own path (my recollection here is sparse, so the details may be off). One sells a “filter” they require bottlers to use (and thus make the money off the filter). The other sells an “additive” (e.g. minerals, etc.).
Admittedly, I’ve not read the legal brief, but my guess is the suit is over the process/mechanism that a company like Coke/Pepsi could use with their business model (relying on others to “finish” the products) in "selling water". This is notable different than just putting some water in a bottle. (Although it really makes you wonder “why” such hoops need to be invented in the first place.)
I’ll leave the discussion as to whether or not the suit has merit to others, but figured a better understanding of the process might help a more informed view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dehydrated water
I was brain storming with my brothers LONG ago around 1980 about this. So filling my said idea up with water and marketing them as hydrated bottles of water is an infringement, and these two guys should owe me 2billion. Any one have the number to a good attorney?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dehydrated water
And for justification they can do some research and development on water and its benefits and claim that all that R&D justifies them getting a patent on water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Some Asshole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C'mon
If you really believe that they deserve this much money why are we not all getting together, finding a friend that works as a highly ranking secretary and suing the pants off their company?
C'mon think about it, so 2 yahoo's and a shitty secretary splitting 1.26 BILLION 3 ways?...seems motive to lie to me.
Again, if you are defending these two you obviously need a lesson in common sense, what they're doing is appalling and it's a tragedy if they even see 1 penny.
Unbelievable how people from other parts of the world want to come to America for a chance to work for a good life, people born into America think they're privileged, don't need to work, and need to find a way to rob a bank or scam the system.
^sorry for the rant, I know most of us are in the working class and have no intentions of scamming people/companies, just a generalized rant of the people in this country.
/soapbox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a second here... Pepsi buys North America Bev Distribution...
"Total there are 34 WisPak shareholders representing 52 franchises throughout Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, Kansas, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota."
"We are proud to distribute Aquafina and Klarbrunn water in a variety of packages."
http://www.manta.com/company/mmncrsx
http://www.wis-pak.com/
http://www.tmqc2.info/i ndex.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=40
I bet there's more to this story because the EU announced that PepsiCo was cleared to purchase bottling and arms across 80% of North America. Perhaps these regional bottlers were shown the door and lost distribution rights..?
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2067321,10,eu_clears_pepsico_to_buy_pepsi_bottling_group,item .html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a second here... Pepsi buys North America Bev Distribution...
Source:
http://wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2009/11/02/126-billion-default-judgment-entered- against-Pepsi-Pepsi-seeking-to-vacate-judgment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PEPSI= DIOT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PEPSI= DIOT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Case name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]