Skip to main content

A Big Question After Watching The Founder

As of this posting (August, 2017), The Founder is finally on Netflix. It's the story of how struggling milkshake-machine seller Ray Kroc came across the first McDonald's in San Bernadino, California, in 1954, which was owned and operated by the real founders, the two McDonald brothers, Dick and Mac. Kroc got in with the brothers, began franchising restaurants, and eventually bought the brothers out for $2.7 million in 1961.

The movie tells the story that the San Bernadino location was the only operating McDonald's in 1959. However, a Time magazine article says there were six McDonald's franchises at the time.

Either way, McDonald's, as a brand, was basically nothing in 1959. How they operated the restaurant was innovative but not complicated. And there was no IP (intellectual property) protection on what they did. You can't patent how your kitchen works or how much you sell hamburgers for. (I'm not talking about selling things you call "Big Macs" or "Egg McMuffins"--that, you can't do.)

There was no reason why Ray Kroc couldn't duplicate everything McDonald's was doing, under a different name, and then grow the business as he did with McDonald's. It would've been perfectly legal. So the Big Question is why didn't he?

Also, not only did he eventually have to buy the brothers out, but for years, Kroc and the brothers had a lot of arguments, and Kroc wormed his way around some early contracts to get leverage on the brothers. And a lot of that $2.7 million was value he created.

The movie gives an unsatisfying answer to the question. One of the brothers does ask Kroc why didn't you just copy us? Ray's answer was that the name "McDonald's" had a wholesome, all-American feel to it. No one would go to a restaurant called "Kroc's".

Okay, not "Kroc's", but what about "Ray's" or "Nick's" or "Fatty's" or "Miller's" or any of a thousand possible names? "The Cheesecake Factory" is a truly awful name, but that hasn't hurt it. I imagine Ray Kroc had the same thought, probably many times, over the years, much too late after he had started growing the McDonald's franchises and was too married to the brand.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more