Sears ethics
- Thread starter zktk01
- Start date
drink
Well-known member
Over the years I noticed a spot where they were asking people to show them their tool inventions. How do they compensate the inventor?
The courts in the USA are not always the best place to settle a dispute. There is too much wrong doing that goes on in courts that should not be happening. Did they sue the correct company, person, etc.? Did they present the case in court properly? What law(s) did the judge decide to apply in the case?
Where is the proof the design was from the 1950's?
AJ1978
Well-known member
I've Seen the Ads for Both. The Bionic Wrench is obviously from appearance better built, and WAIT... Built in America.... Video says Sears Believes in America! They Do? wow....
four.cycle
Well-known member
Nothing new.
Sears made millions by appropriating the quick-release ratchet designed by Peter M. Roberts in the 1960s. Only after years of litigation was he compensated.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-14/business/fi-19337_1_wrench-case
But if Americans were motivated in their purchasing by ethics, they'd stop eating and buying all things corn and demand an end to Montsano's virtual monopoly of the corn industry.
Consumers don't care about minor stuff like that - they just want "cheaper".
Sears made millions by appropriating the quick-release ratchet designed by Peter M. Roberts in the 1960s. Only after years of litigation was he compensated.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-14/business/fi-19337_1_wrench-case
But if Americans were motivated in their purchasing by ethics, they'd stop eating and buying all things corn and demand an end to Montsano's virtual monopoly of the corn industry.
Consumers don't care about minor stuff like that - they just want "cheaper".
Dirtydan69
Well-known member
kwschumm
Well-known member
True that. Many large companies with deep pockets for legal action do the same thing. They rely on the ability to outspend the little guy in the courtroom. A lot like government in that regard, many laws are unconstitutional but unless a LOT of people get together to bankroll a legal fight the laws are left intact.
four.cycle
Well-known member
^ That was the reason that Ford kept building the Pinto with the gas tank directly in front of the rear bumper: their bean-counters crunched the numbers and figured it would be cheaper over the long run to pay legal fees and settlements than redesign the vehicle.
Nothing new under the sun.
Nothing new under the sun.
FigureItOut
Well-known member
I read about this a while back, and my first inclination was to buy a Loggerhead Tools Bionic Wrench.
guspech750
Well-known member
Not surprised. I quit buying from Sears long ago.
Sent from The White House on taxpayers dimes.
Sent from The White House on taxpayers dimes.
woody 73
Well-known member
dnschmidt
Well-known member
I haven't bought anything from Sears for at least 20 years. I doubt this revelation is going to change that.
vettex2
Banned
Same logic was used on the Crown Vics.
The Pinto was as safe as any other small car of the time. They were the target of a law firm that smeared them to make a huge legal killing, and it worked.
Really? Ford knew pintos would start on fire when rear ended. But figured it would be cheaper to pay out the lawsuits than fix the problem.
kythri
Well-known member
Same logic was used on the Crown Vics.
Nonsense.
The Vic fuel tank location isn't inherently unsafe. Very, VERY few of them ever suffered a fuel tank rupture, and those that did were impacted while stopped by a vehicle traveling 60+ mph, and typically due to trunk contents piercing the fuel tank.
The Kevlar kits that Ford retrofitted into CVPIs resolved that issue handily, protecting the tank from trunk contents puncturing it, but any stopped car hit at that speed is going to suffer issues that may include a ruptured fuel tank or fuel line.
NHTSA's investigation cleared Ford, and the CV/CVPI exceeds safety requirements/standards for the years they were built.
There's nothing inherently unsafe about a Vic.
My in laws bought me one for Christmas a few years ago. They always get me some gimmicky tool. This is one that I actually use on occasion. Used it just a few weeks ago to remove a side mounted stripped battery terminal on the suburban. With ease.
Untrue and bullshirt.Same logic was used on the Crown Vics.
The sad thing is that the Crown Victoria was the only car that's ever been held to an impossible standard. No vehicle designed today can withstand a rear impact from highway speeds. The Entire Panther (Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, Lincoln Towncar and Mercury Marauder) line of vehicles all had their gas tanks in the same position, above the floor of the trunk. Those cars are quite possibly the safest and cheapest cars available today.
nieuport17
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Messages
- 466
I for one is surprised that Sears wants to copy that tool. Its a silly holiday tool that will disappear eventually.
Sears should have focuses on core tools.
Idiotic decisions that get them where they are now.
Sears should have focuses on core tools.
Idiotic decisions that get them where they are now.
kythri
Well-known member
Those silly holiday tools sell a ton, and make them a ton of money.
PBCampbell
Well-known member
I would think the dozens, maybe hundreds, of times they've been sued for consumer fraud and lost over the past few decades would be a better indicator of their ethics than a few instances of screwing over the occasional oddball inventor.
jl4c
Well-known member
America, where you get all the justice you can afford.
Looks like you can buy both wrenches at Sears.com
http://www.sears.com/loggerhead-tools-8-in-bionic-wrench/p-00916521000P
http://www.sears.com/craftsman-8-in-max-axess-locking-wrench/p-00935359000P?rrec=true
Wonder if they reached a settlement
http://www.sears.com/loggerhead-tools-8-in-bionic-wrench/p-00916521000P
http://www.sears.com/craftsman-8-in-max-axess-locking-wrench/p-00935359000P?rrec=true
Wonder if they reached a settlement
Last edited:
Cato
Well-known member
Is Sears some sort of charity? Keeping slobs in business who can't compete globally nor intelligent enough to file a patent?
That small business owner reinvented the wheel. That's why he didn't have any patent protection. Existing patents already covered his "invention." He's lucky Sears gave him a few years of carrying his wrench.
Sear's issue is that it's was always too soft to succeed in the modern business world.
That small business owner reinvented the wheel. That's why he didn't have any patent protection. Existing patents already covered his "invention." He's lucky Sears gave him a few years of carrying his wrench.
Sear's issue is that it's was always too soft to succeed in the modern business world.
yamaha0343
Well-known member
At the rate things are going for them, you won't have to boycott Sears much longer.
anndel
Well-known member
I bought these several years ago for my truck box. They are the original Made in USA Bionic Wrenches by Loggerhead Tools. I saw the Sears made in china ones and looked the other way. Sad to say we don't shop there anymore, not even for car batteries.
Last edited:
DonglordActual
Well-known member
This is the best article I read on this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/business/popular-wrench-fights-a-chinese-rival.html
He did have patents for this tool but Sears probably changed things enough for them to not matter. The end product is a Craftsman version made by Apex in China for $13.25 retail instead of $25~ like the Loggerhead one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/business/popular-wrench-fights-a-chinese-rival.html
He did have patents for this tool but Sears probably changed things enough for them to not matter. The end product is a Craftsman version made by Apex in China for $13.25 retail instead of $25~ like the Loggerhead one.
WWheeler
Well-known member
Yeah can't really get too worked up over the Bionic gimmick wrench, but Mr Roberts saga with them that you linked to, now THAT was some serious no-lube screwing on Sears' part. Rather than reinvent the wheel, my reply to the last Bionic Wrench thread works just as well here ...
These co's had better start caring about the North American worker, because exploited workers in China (many of them work 15 hour days 6 days a week) do not have any money to buy these products. They're destroying their customer bases.
Last edited:
kythri
Well-known member
Sears claims they based their tool design off of this patent:
https://searsholdings.com/images/article/Patent_2787925_Buchanan.pdf
Brown expressly argued, in his patent application, that his tool design was NOT based off of the patent Sears claims their design is based off of.
So, who's telling the truth?
The Sears design seems pretty clearly derivative of the 1957 patent (six lugs instead of three, but that's not enough of a difference to warrant a new patent). Brown swears Sears copied him, so did Brown lie in his patent application? Or is Brown lying about Sears copying his design?
https://searsholdings.com/images/article/Patent_2787925_Buchanan.pdf
Brown expressly argued, in his patent application, that his tool design was NOT based off of the patent Sears claims their design is based off of.
So, who's telling the truth?
The Sears design seems pretty clearly derivative of the 1957 patent (six lugs instead of three, but that's not enough of a difference to warrant a new patent). Brown swears Sears copied him, so did Brown lie in his patent application? Or is Brown lying about Sears copying his design?
And that is the truth of the matter. I have heard about this from sears and several other companies. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
WWheeler
Well-known member
This is old news. Sears won the lawsuit.
Bionic Wrench Maker Loggerhead Tools Loses Trademark Suit vs. Sears
http://www.techplz.com/bionic-wrench-maker-loggerhead-tools-loses-trademark-suit-vs-sears/173566/
kythri
Well-known member
Negatory.
Sears got the trademark/trade dress suit summarily dismissed.
The patent infringement lawsuit has not been decided as of yet.
It helps to read the links you post.
WWheeler
Well-known member
I did read it. I read it again after reading your post. Still not seeing anything in the link I posted where it says anything about a patent infringement suit that's not been decided. Not even seeing the word patent anywhere in the article. Doesn't mention anything about other litigation still pending. As far as I knew from reading the link I posted the only suit was that and it was settled.
Anywho, I really could care less. Whoever invented that gimmick tool should be ashamed of themselves. I hope they both lose. lol
Last edited:
Having worked on and with patents and as someone who has spent now almost 5 years trying to get one of my patents through the system I can say the devil is clearly in the details. Based on the few article's I've read I can't see anything that shows Sears actually broke the law or violated the guy's patents. It's often very hard to create a patent so strong that someone can't work around it. That's often the frustration with patents for smaller companies. It's one thing to get a patent that keeps someone from creating exactly the same device. It's MUCH harder to get a patent that blocks others from producing a similar device.
As for Sears deciding to carry a competing product, well that's a risk that people take when deciding to work with someone like Sears. I know of a at least one well known company (not a tool company) that has a bad reputation among inventors. The reputation is they will look at your idea and IP and then decide (if they want the invention at all) if it's cheaper to engineer around your patents or buy your patents. Because of that reputation I know some people who won't show potential ideas to that company. That does hurt the company since it means a good invention might go to a competitor for a price they would have been happy to pay were never given the option.
The Pinto a Crown Vic were both examples of what happens when the story is told by people working with the lawyers who stand to make millions if the car is found to be defective.
The Pinto is one of the most widely misunderstood cases of all time. There was no calculation to see if it was cheaper to pay off victims. Ford engineers understood the car was less safe than a large car but never felt it was an unsafe product (in fact several Ford employees who were in positions to know had family members driving Pintos). The stories about secret crash tests where the car caught fire was as much BS. The late 60s and early 70s were a time before anyone really knew how to conduct a crash test. Ford and others were conducting crash tests to figure out the best way to run the test. They weren't really looking at how the car performed since they didn't know if the tests were good simulations of real life. In the end Ford's biggest mistake was not getting ahead of a wave of bad and often grossly misleading/wrong news/hack stories. It is perhaps ironic that the Pinto, which in retrospect had a safety record about equal to all cars of the time and better than the average small car of the time is considered a fire trap while the VW Bug, which had a fatal accident rate FAR higher than the Pinto is beloved. This is a good, relatively short read for those who are interested
Pinto Article
The Crown Vic was another hack job sort of story. A few examples of dumb bad luck when a car gets hit by a 70 mph truck (something actually bigger than the CV and now people think it has a fire problem. And a CV link
As for Sears deciding to carry a competing product, well that's a risk that people take when deciding to work with someone like Sears. I know of a at least one well known company (not a tool company) that has a bad reputation among inventors. The reputation is they will look at your idea and IP and then decide (if they want the invention at all) if it's cheaper to engineer around your patents or buy your patents. Because of that reputation I know some people who won't show potential ideas to that company. That does hurt the company since it means a good invention might go to a competitor for a price they would have been happy to pay were never given the option.
Same logic was used on the Crown Vics.
The Pinto a Crown Vic were both examples of what happens when the story is told by people working with the lawyers who stand to make millions if the car is found to be defective.
The Pinto is one of the most widely misunderstood cases of all time. There was no calculation to see if it was cheaper to pay off victims. Ford engineers understood the car was less safe than a large car but never felt it was an unsafe product (in fact several Ford employees who were in positions to know had family members driving Pintos). The stories about secret crash tests where the car caught fire was as much BS. The late 60s and early 70s were a time before anyone really knew how to conduct a crash test. Ford and others were conducting crash tests to figure out the best way to run the test. They weren't really looking at how the car performed since they didn't know if the tests were good simulations of real life. In the end Ford's biggest mistake was not getting ahead of a wave of bad and often grossly misleading/wrong news/hack stories. It is perhaps ironic that the Pinto, which in retrospect had a safety record about equal to all cars of the time and better than the average small car of the time is considered a fire trap while the VW Bug, which had a fatal accident rate FAR higher than the Pinto is beloved. This is a good, relatively short read for those who are interested
Pinto Article
The Crown Vic was another hack job sort of story. A few examples of dumb bad luck when a car gets hit by a 70 mph truck (something actually bigger than the CV and now people think it has a fire problem. And a CV link
mudflap
Well-known member
Holy cow......i read most of this, and didnt even know what a "bionic wrench" was until i clicked rk5n's link.... Both Companies should be sued for marketing that thing............................................................
Cruzan80
Well-known member
Doesn't this come around every few months? The thing happened YEARS ago.
hangfirew8
Well-known member
There was a memo ("Fatalities Associated with Crash-Induced Fuel Leakage and Fires.") and there was a calculation. However the $49.5M "cost to society" of an estimated 180 burn deaths + 180 serious injures per year was less than the calculated $11/vehicle or $137M across all vehicle manufacturers (not just Ford) to fix the problem.
If Ford had been more corporately intelligent, they would have calculated potential liability, recoiled in shock, and then quickly moved to fix the problem, at least going forward. But their callous estimation that $11/vehicle was too much to even fix the problem in current production vehicles cost them dearly.
So you're kind of right. Tort liabilities were ignored in the calculation. The calculation was, what's 180 lives per year when you can save $11 per vehicle?
kythri
Well-known member
Can't let a little thing like time get in the way of a good Sears/Craftsman bashing...
mudflap
Well-known member
Jeep is going thru the same thing with the Liberty models.. Their fix is to put a trailer hitch on the back.. but tests show, that makes it worse..the hitch just gets pushed into the tank..