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

Know Your Rights: New York's Consumer Protection Statute

Under New York law, there are several ways that consumers can recover damages (money) or other relief against businesses that ripped them off, deceived them, or otherwise treated them improperly. One of these ways is New York's Consumer Protection Statute (General Business Law § 349). Under GBL §349, a consumer can sue a business if he or she can show that the subject act or practice (1) was consumer-oriented; (2) was misleading in a material way; and (3) the consumer suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act. If successful, a consumer can recover their actual damages (money they lost), their reasonable attorney fees, and "treble" (triple) damages up to $1,000 (if the business acted willfully and knowingly in deceiving the consumer). The $1,000 cap on treble damages needs to be eliminated. It is no deterrent to businesses behaving badly. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Enforcing Money Judgments

Let's say you represent yourself in a lawsuit. You sue someone in small claims court or District Court, or even Supreme Court. Or you're a small firm, representing a plaintiff, and maybe the technicalities of enforcing judgments are outside of your comfort zone. The facts and the law are on your side; there was a trial or a motion, and you win your case. You are entitled to money from the defendant. Maybe you've gotten so far as a getting piece of paper signed by a judge that says "Judgment". Hooray! So then what? Now you have to actually  get your money from the defendant. That can be difficult if the person or company does not want to pay. That means the judgment will have to be enforced . And if you don't know how to enforce a judgment, your piece of paper that says "Judgment" isn't worth a whole lot, even after all the trouble you went through to win your case. That's where this office comes in. Enforcing judgments can be trick...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more