The McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit
00:00 - 05:27
5m 27s

Though the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants story, also known as the hot coffee lawsuit, has become a punchline, Adam argues that the facts of Liebeck's case are extremely serious and relevant to today. He clarifies misconceptions about the story and explains the implications of it.

Comments

Please sign in to write a comment.
Video Transcript

Related Clips

This clip explains what rules something must abide by in order to obtain trademark protection, and lists the numerous things (sounds, logos, names, etc.) that can be trademarked. Stan also gives an example of how some things, such as flavor, cannot be trademarked, and why that is the case.
This clip discusses the different cases the Supreme Court takes on and the historical significance of a case that goes through the Supreme Court.
This clip details how copyright protects an intangible product instead of a physical copy of that product.
Fred Fredburger is summoned to court for a civil suit against Mandy for the custody of Grim. Although it conflates a civil trial with a criminal trial, this is not evident during this snippet.
An explanation of what copyright law intends to protect (doctrine of "originality"), and some things copyright does not protect (like names or slogans).