![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Can't stand Pepsi. If PepsiCo went bankrupt, I think the only thing I'd miss would be Mt. Dew.
Since Coke would have to step up manufacturing in order to meet the new demand, and would likely just buy up the Pepsi formula (or just add a few more tons of sugar to each batch of Coke), I'm sure the people working for Pepsi (other than the useless office staff) would find jobs at all the new Coca-Cola plants.
Except that tests on bottled water have generally shown that bottled water contains higher levels of bacteria and other contaminants than most municipal water sources filtered-at-the-tap. Not enough to hurt you, but it should be enough to make you think twice about paying for bottled water.
You're better off buying a glass pitcher and using it to hold your daily water, cleaning it each night. The bottles used by the water bottling plants might sit around for months or years before they're used for water.
@cmdrsass:
Gathering evidence, for one thing.
Simply selling bottled water is one thing, unlikely that they could collect damages for that. On the other hand, if they devised some sort of marketing strategy/device/what-have-you, it might take a dozen years to gather enough evidence to prove that their claim was legitimate.
\"Non-obviousness requirement\" my aching ass.
I don't know *WHAT* you'd have to try and patent to have it thrown out as \"obvious,\" short of geometric shapes.
Of course, if you look hard enough, you can probably find those, too.
On appeal, you can only appeal based on the facts in evidence which led to the judgement, or on procedural grounds. Since the default judgement was a procedural finding and not a finding based on merit, PepsiCo's only legitimate defense in the appeal is against the timeliness with which they received the notification.
Notably, the cased would *ALREADY* have been thrown out if the SoL had expired. Since there is, functionally, *NO* statute of limitations on a claim of copyright/IP (which this, at its base, is), there can be no legitimate claim of a lapsed SoL.
@RvLeshrac: You're right, I was thinking about this around 4 AM this morning, seeing your time stamp I should have jumped on to post then.
I think in my haste to call mythago out on his often snarky and unhelpful comments (and I see in the baseball bat thread he is up to it again), I forgot that on appeal you can't present new evidence, which the SoL argument would require.
@ecwis:
\"She was busy in a meeting\" seems to be winning this one. I guess that's only a \"decent reason\" if you make six figures, though.
@sleze69: \"Do we really have any assurances that it is purified?\"
A good example would be how Anheuser Busch purifies Budweiser, they simply process it through their Clydesdale horses a few times just to be sure then bottle it.
@oblivious87: I'm not accusing them of false advertising. I am accusing them of deception which doesn't need to be illegal for it to be wrong.
The purpose of my request is to eliminate that deception and increase transparency. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my request. In general, people want to know exactly what it is that they are buying and they do not want to have to jump through hoops to find out. They want to look at a bottle of water and quickly understand in a matter of seconds exactly what they are purchasing without feeling like they are being tricked.
Again, if you are correct and this is common knowledge already then PepsiCo has absolutely nothing to fear from my request and only has the potential to gain because people who trust a product/service/company tend to spend more money on it over time.
However, if you are wrong then PepsiCo has the potential to lose money because people will stop buying their product in favor of a competitor because they don't want tap water. Thus, increasing consumer friendly competition through transparency where quality + competitive prices wins.
I assume you are in favor of consumer friendly competition through the use of transparency rather than deception and trickery right?
With a name like Jacuzzi, who cares about 1.26 BILION? ? NOT this guy right here !! That's WHO!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-10572-100x100.png\")
This makes me feel marginally better about Crystal Pepsi.
As a sidenote, the all-powerful Wiki claims that it tasted just like colored Pepsi which is a load of hooey. It tasted like mineral water. :-p
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1223549-100x100.png\")
@mythago: Yes, at this point in time, the headline is completely false.
@ecwis:
Actually, it isn't false. It is the whole truth. PepsiCo currently owes the plaintiffs $1.26bn.
That judgement *MAY* be vacated *IN THE FUTURE*, but now, today, they owe $1.26bn.