Do we have your attention now?

[Bob]

PepsiCo misplaces letter, faces $1.26 bln judgment - News - CNBC.com misplaces letter, faces $1.26 bln judgment
By: AFX | 28 Oct 2009 | 04:42 PM ET
Text Size

By Jonathan Stempel NEW YORK, Oct 28 (Reuters) - It's an expensive lesson on the importance of reading your mail. A Wisconsin judge has ordered PepsiCo Inc to pay $1.26 billion to two men who said it stole their idea to sell purified water after a secretary mislaid a document alerting the world's No. 2 soft drink maker the lawsuit existed. The case was reported earlier on Wednesday by The National Law Journal.

The judgment amount is equal to more than 20 percent of PepsiCo's reported annual profits in recent years, regulatory filings show. According to filings with the Jefferson County Circuit Court, Charles Joyce and James Voigt won the Sept. 30 judgment five months after first suing PepsiCo and two distributors. The Wisconsin men said they talked with the distributors in 1981 about their idea to bottle and sell purified water and that PepsiCo later stole the idea by creating Aquafina........score one for the little guy!

 

[30ashopper]

PepsiCo misplaces letter, faces $1.26 bln judgment - News - CNBC.com misplaces letter, faces $1.26 bln judgment
By: AFX | 28 Oct 2009 | 04:42 PM ET
Text Size

By Jonathan Stempel NEW YORK, Oct 28 (Reuters) - It's an expensive lesson on the importance of reading your mail. A Wisconsin judge has ordered PepsiCo Inc to pay $1.26 billion to two men who said it stole their idea to sell purified water after a secretary mislaid a document alerting the world's No. 2 soft drink maker the lawsuit existed. The case was reported earlier on Wednesday by The National Law Journal.

The judgment amount is equal to more than 20 percent of PepsiCo's reported annual profits in recent years, regulatory filings show. According to filings with the Jefferson County Circuit Court, Charles Joyce and James Voigt won the Sept. 30 judgment five months after first suing PepsiCo and two distributors. The Wisconsin men said they talked with the distributors in 1981 about their idea to bottle and sell purified water and that PepsiCo later stole the idea by creating Aquafina........score one for the little guy!

You're kidding right? They discussed the idea of selling bottled water with a distributor and 15 years later Pepsi starts selling bottled water. After a five month trial they walk away with 1.26 billion? You consder this a "win", somehow, for somebody, besides the lawyers?

 

[Andy A]

You're kidding right? They discussed the idea of selling bottled water with a distributor and 15 years later Pepsi starts selling bottled water. After a five month trial they walk away with 1.26 billion? You consder this a "win", somehow, for somebody, besides the lawyers?

Thanks for this wonderful post, Bob. It definitely shows the need for tort reform in all areas of our jurisdictional system, not just healthcare. Our judical system is in shambles.

 

[Beanstalk]

PepsiCo misplaces letter, faces $1.26 bln judgment - News - CNBC.com misplaces letter, faces $1.26 bln judgment
By: AFX | 28 Oct 2009 | 04:42 PM ET
Text Size

By Jonathan Stempel NEW YORK, Oct 28 (Reuters) - It's an expensive lesson on the importance of reading your mail. A Wisconsin judge has ordered PepsiCo Inc to pay $1.26 billion to two men who said it stole their idea to sell purified water after a secretary mislaid a document alerting the world's No. 2 soft drink maker the lawsuit existed. The case was reported earlier on Wednesday by The National Law Journal.

The judgment amount is equal to more than 20 percent of PepsiCo's reported annual profits in recent years, regulatory filings show. According to filings with the Jefferson County Circuit Court, Charles Joyce and James Voigt won the Sept. 30 judgment five months after first suing PepsiCo and two distributors. The Wisconsin men said they talked with the distributors in 1981 about their idea to bottle and sell purified water and that PepsiCo later stole the idea by creating Aquafina........score one for the little guy!

Bob, I had read this a few days ago. But seeing your posting here and your "Score one for the little guy" Opinion I ask you. Just what do you mean? This statement makes it sound as if the case (In depth research would share this) was a frivolous lawsuit that tied up millions of dollars in cost not to mention the lawyers on both sides making a killing. So if you would take a moment and help me to understand what you mean by that statement.

My opinion is the "Lil Guy" had a BIGGER guy finance their lawsuit. The lawyers made a killin. Just curious who this little guy really is Bob. TIA

 

[Bob]

Bob, I had read this a few days ago. But seeing your posting here and your "Score one for the little guy" Opinion I ask you. Just what do you mean? This statement makes it sound as if the case (In depth research would share this) was a frivolous lawsuit that tied up millions of dollars in cost not to mention the lawyers on both sides making a killing. So if you would take a moment and help me to understand what you mean by that statement.

My opinion is the "Lil Guy" had a BIGGER guy finance their lawsuit. The lawyers made a killin. Just curious who this little guy really is Bob. TIA

if you did indeed read the article, you would know that pepsi inadvertently did not respond to the suit. they may appeal. i would assume the lawsuit was not frivolous, and that evidence was presented in order to obtain the judgement. would you say the same to the inventor of the intermittent wiper whose idea was stolen by all the car manufacturers? what millions of dollars of cost are you referring to? pepsi was a no-show.

 

[Bob]

Thanks for this wonderful post, Bob. It definitely shows the need for tort reform in all areas of our jurisdictional system, not just healthcare. Our judical system is in shambles.

thanks for not reading the article, and may you not suffer the consequences of anyone stealing your intellectual property, assuming you were to have any. tort reform is republican talking points designed to defend corporate america, keepers of your local country club. these fellows took on the giant. they won! your assumption is that there was no merit to the case, and our legal system cannot decide damages? that's totalitarian state thinking!

 

[jodiFL]

I was the victim of similar circumstances once... someone decided to sue me for something I thought had no merit, I decided F*it and was a no show.. they won... so it is a good lesson for anyone that thinks ignoring or misplacing an official document wont hurt you. I dont think the article says anything about or judicial system except that what is good for the big guys is also good for the little ones. (for a change)

 

[Bob]

i'm sure we have not heard the last of this case.