MovieChat Forums > Flash of Genius (2008) Discussion > Why did Chrysler pay more damages? (solv...

Why did Chrysler pay more damages? (solved)

posted 14 years ago by Deusvolt
7 replies | jump to latest

It was Ford who stole the invention but paid only a little over 10 million while Chrysler paid more than 18 million. Did Chrysler pay royalties to Ford to use the wiper? If so, did Ford pay Chrysler for damages for dragging them into the mess? How about the Japanese car makers. I have driven Mitsubishis, Toyotas and Hondas and they all have intermittent wipers. Did they pay damages or belated royalties too? Curiously my old Nissan Sentra 91 does not have intermittent wipers.

[–] max-silver 14 years ago

Perhaps it was that AMC had stolen it as well, and because Chrysler bought them in 1987, they had to pay for two manufacturers instead of one?

[–] Deusvolt 14 years ago

Plausible. Waiting for someone with definitive answer though. Thanks.

[–] camel-wides 13 years ago

in the movie, they show kearns representing himself from 2/3 of the way to settlement, until the final judgement against ford. this is inaccurate. he had a veritable army of lawyers throughout his case against ford.
once that judgement was made, a precedent is set, validating his patents. his court case against chrysler required less work proving the validity of his patents, and the basis of it being his intellectual property than the ford case did, since it had already been proven.
the chrysler case thereby became more of an accounting of how many infringing units were installed, and what cash had been denied to him via those infringing units. kearns did represent himself on the case against chrystler, but it was a far less legally technical battle than the ford battle.
also, i think ford was given the benefit of the doubt on some of the r/d/testing costs for the implementation of the units.

[–] Deusvolt 13 years ago

Great answer! I might also add that I presume a different court tried the Chrysler case and the jury (or judge) was more convinced of Kearn's position.

[–] e_esoteric 13 years ago

The reason why Chrysler paid more damages was because they were the only defendant to pay any damages.

Contrary to what's depicted on the film, Kearns actually did settle with Ford for the $10M. The settlement came with an agreement not to pursue appeals. It should be noted that Kearns had professional attorneys working for him in his case against Ford.

Dissatisfied with his attorneys' performance, Kearns represented himself in the case against Chrysler and saw through it to the end, resulting in damages awarded of $18.7M plus legal fees of about $10M. Chrysler did appeal, however to no avail. The Supreme Court of the US declined to hear the case.

Kearns also pursued other auto companies as his own attorney, but the process proved overwhelming and those cases were dismissed based on procedural grounds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/26/obituaries/26kearns.html?_r=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54564-2005Feb25.html

[–] Deusvolt 13 years ago

You have the most convincing and logical answer and therefore I am marking this question "solved." Thank you.

[–] max-silver 12 years ago

Didn't he also find out he couldn't sue GM because their design didn't infringe on his patent?