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:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more