"The film 'Flash of Genius' chronicles the life story of Bob Kearns, who asserted that he invented the intermittent windshield wiper and sued Ford, Chrysler and other automakers for patent infringement. While films like 'Flash of Genius' are made for entertainment purposes, the facts are often less dramatic. Bob Kearns as well as hundreds of engineers [...]
Read More: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/for...enius-fallout/

-----------------------------------
Ford NewsHub: Latest auto news sourced from websites, portals and blogs
http://www.carshops247.co.uk/news/Ford.html

Flash of Blue Oval bashing

September 30, 2008 - 3:06 pm ET

I haven't decided whether I'll go see Flash of Genius or An American Carol
when those movies open this weekend.
Flash of Genius is the story of inventor Robert Kearns and his patent
infringement fight with Ford, Chrysler and other automakers he claimed stole
his design for intermittent windshield wipers.

Having been a reporter during the era of all that litigation -- which
started in 1978 and dragged on until 1995 -- I know that Kerns won two
famous cases -- one against Ford and one against Chrysler.

Even so, there are those who still argue that there was no way Ford could
have stolen the Kearns design and that Ford settled the lawsuit for $10.2
million -- twice what a jury originally awarded -- to end a tiresome
appellate struggle in which neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had a
preponderance of evidence.

Either way, you know it doesn't matter to Hollywood.

It apparently doesn't matter to Ford, either.

The official view is that it's just a movie . so people who see it
undoubtedly will realize that what they see on the big silver screen
happened decades ago and they'll know the facts probably have been altered
to enhance the storyline.
But if that theory is true, why do so many otherwise rational people suspend
reality and succumb to Michael Moore's celluloid fantasies?

One Ford insider told me the movie probably won't be very popular, limiting
any damage to the Blue Oval. That means the company won't need to buy out
all of the movie theaters in select markets the way it did in Detroit in
1987 when Ford: The Man and the Machine presented an unflattering view of
Henry Ford, as played by Cliff Robertson.

But this time, actor Greg Kinnear, who portrays Kearns, is already being
touted as a probable Oscar nominee by some entertainment blogs. Flash of
Genius may draw more attention than originally believed.

Come to think of it, it could be interesting and instructive to see just how
evil Hollywood thinks Ford execs were back then.

On the other hand, An American Carol is a parody of Charles Dickens' A
Christmas Carol that lampoons the snot out of Michael Moore.

Now that sounds like an Oscar winner.

<sjmmail2000-247@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FZmdnQ1zNdMFiH7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> "The film 'Flash of Genius' chronicles the life story of Bob Kearns, who
> asserted that he invented the intermittent windshield wiper and sued Ford,
> Chrysler and other automakers for patent infringement.

Kearns may have "asserted" that he invented the intermittent windshield
wiper, but he didn't. Both Trico and GM filed patents on intermittent
windshield wipers before Kearns did. I doubt this film will bring in any
serious cash at the boxoffice. Yawn.

Derek

> Kearns may have "asserted" that he invented the intermittent windshield
> wiper, but he didn't. Both Trico and GM filed patents on intermittent
> windshield wipers before Kearns did. I doubt this film will bring in any
> serious cash at the boxoffice. Yawn.
>
> Derek

Bob Kearns developed one approach to creating intermittent wipers.
As noted, others had developed different means to create the same
outcome -- wipers which could 'pause'. I find the timing of the
release and the movie's theme to be of more interest. Granted, yet
another anti big business movie; another cheer for the little guy;
another succeeds against all odds story.

I found Ebert's review more than a bit unusual, to wit; " But
enough. I have "Flash of Genius" to review. Yes, I am agitated. I am
writing during days of economic meltdown, after Wall Street raped Main
Street while the Bush ideology held it down. Believe me, I could go on
like this all day."

Why did Ebert feel the need to slam W in a movie review? A month
before the election. In addition, why then did he fail to note the
present collapse could be directly traced to Jimmy Carter's Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA). A program which forced (not other word for
it) banks and lenders to take on extremely risky loans and mortgages.
The CRA was further expanded by Bill Clinton to push for even more bad
loans. A house of cards whose collapse started the current fiscal
fiasco. Either Roger Ebert does not know the background of the crisis
or else he believes his readers are not particularly informed. It is
pretty easy to track the banks unloading these loans to Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. Which began buying up bad loans and offering them
for sale on world markets -- while showing very exaggerated asset
values on their books for this worthless property.

I always enjoyed Ebert's reviews. Until now. The man has long a
major chunk of his credibility with me.