This is terrible! - Page 5

Catitude · ‎01-09-2014

Frivolous suit.

Cakers1 · ‎03-09-2010

/

scotttie · ‎03-09-2010

On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
60 years is a long time but 60 years and back many people were paid pennies for rights to many things, including board games.

Let's not forget that a lawsuit initiated by an AA family would be scoffed at even more back then.

If a payment was agreed upon back then there is nothing to recover, imo.

And yes, a recipe for a basic pancake is pretty much universal.

I would be interested in seeing the basis for their suit.

And was the pancake recipe universal BACK THEN? It's universal now but is that because she came up with it?

scottie: No, pancakes in all forms have been around since forever. The pancake mix in the Aunt Jemima box is just a convenience, not an original.

But was hers the first?

scottie: The first what - pancake??? I'm not following.

First pre-packaged pancake mix.

It doesn't matter. First not first. I can't really discuss the issue until we see the basis for their suit.

scottie: The pancake mix dates back to the late 1800's. I think the Aunt Jemima trademark, not the mix, also predates somewhere around there. So no, it's not her recipe being used in the mix.

I went and checked the link that moonchilde posted (hey meant to say THANKS MOONCHILDE---it was a very informative and educational article!)

Anyway that article said that the Aunt Jemima product was the first prepackaged pancake mix but it was not the recipe used by African Americans at the time. (Isn't it fun when we are both right LOL!)

Anyway, again, after reading the article posted my Moonchilde, I will say it looks like this case is pretty thin.

However, I would like to see the basis of their claim before I make up my mind considering the way African Americans were treated in those days.

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
60 years is a long time but 60 years and back many people were paid pennies for rights to many things, including board games.

Let's not forget that a lawsuit initiated by an AA family would be scoffed at even more back then.

If a payment was agreed upon back then there is nothing to recover, imo.

And yes, a recipe for a basic pancake is pretty much universal.

I would be interested in seeing the basis for their suit.

And was the pancake recipe universal BACK THEN? It's universal now but is that because she came up with it?

scottie: No, pancakes in all forms have been around since forever. The pancake mix in the Aunt Jemima box is just a convenience, not an original.

But was hers the first?

scottie: The first what - pancake??? I'm not following.

First pre-packaged pancake mix.

It doesn't matter. First not first. I can't really discuss the issue until we see the basis for their suit.

scottie: The pancake mix dates back to the late 1800's. I think the Aunt Jemima trademark, not the mix, also predates somewhere around there. So no, it's not her recipe being used in the mix.

I went and checked the link that moonchilde posted (hey meant to say THANKS MOONCHILDE---it was a very informative and educational article!)

Anyway that article said that the Aunt Jemima product was the first prepackaged pancake mix but it was not the recipe used by African Americans at the time. (Isn't it fun when we are both right LOL!)

Anyway, again, after reading the article posted my Moonchilde, I will say it looks like this case is pretty thin.

However, I would like to see the basis of their claim before I make up my mind considering the way African Americans were treated in those days.

You're welcome :-) It appears to me there is no basis for a suit based on recipe, but a suit based on the image on the box is different. And just as the "Quaker" on the oatmeal box has changed, "Aunt Jemima" on the packaging has changed drastically over the years. Wonder how the law deals with that?

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

scotttie · ‎03-09-2010

On 11/8/2014 moonchilde said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
On 11/8/2014 Cakers1 said:
60 years is a long time but 60 years and back many people were paid pennies for rights to many things, including board games.

Let's not forget that a lawsuit initiated by an AA family would be scoffed at even more back then.

If a payment was agreed upon back then there is nothing to recover, imo.

And yes, a recipe for a basic pancake is pretty much universal.

I would be interested in seeing the basis for their suit.

And was the pancake recipe universal BACK THEN? It's universal now but is that because she came up with it?

scottie: No, pancakes in all forms have been around since forever. The pancake mix in the Aunt Jemima box is just a convenience, not an original.

But was hers the first?

scottie: The first what - pancake??? I'm not following.

First pre-packaged pancake mix.

It doesn't matter. First not first. I can't really discuss the issue until we see the basis for their suit.

scottie: The pancake mix dates back to the late 1800's. I think the Aunt Jemima trademark, not the mix, also predates somewhere around there. So no, it's not her recipe being used in the mix.

I went and checked the link that moonchilde posted (hey meant to say THANKS MOONCHILDE---it was a very informative and educational article!)

Anyway that article said that the Aunt Jemima product was the first prepackaged pancake mix but it was not the recipe used by African Americans at the time. (Isn't it fun when we are both right LOL!)

Anyway, again, after reading the article posted my Moonchilde, I will say it looks like this case is pretty thin.

However, I would like to see the basis of their claim before I make up my mind considering the way African Americans were treated in those days.

You're welcome :-) It appears to me there is no basis for a suit based on recipe, but a suit based on the image on the box is different. And just as the "Quaker" on the oatmeal box has changed, "Aunt Jemima" on the packaging has changed drastically over the years. Wonder how the law deals with that?

Yes. Not knowing anything about the law, my guess still is that is where they are going to get thrown out.

scotttie · ‎03-09-2010

Oh, and Moonchilde, I just noticed something else, nowhere in the link you posted could I find this Anna Short Harrington mentioned as being one of the "Aunt Jemimas"

("The great grandchildren of Anna Short Harrington, the face of the Aunt Jemima brand, are suing Quaker Oats, their parent company PepsiCo, and Pinnacle Foods Group for $2 billion.)

Curious.

Moonchilde · ‎05-23-2010

On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
Oh, and Moonchilde, I just noticed something else, nowhere in the link you posted could I find this Anna Short Harrington mentioned as being one of the "Aunt Jemimas"

("The great grandchildren of Anna Short Harrington, the face of the Aunt Jemima brand, are suing Quaker Oats, their parent company PepsiCo, and Pinnacle Foods Group for $2 billion.)

Curious.

True. There is much we don't know. I'm thinking the more validity there is to the claim, we will continue to hear about it periodically. If it drops totally and permanently off the radar, 'nuff said.

Life without Mexican food is no life at all

scotttie · ‎03-09-2010

On 11/8/2014 moonchilde said:
On 11/8/2014 scotttie said:
Oh, and Moonchilde, I just noticed something else, nowhere in the link you posted could I find this Anna Short Harrington mentioned as being one of the "Aunt Jemimas"

("The great grandchildren of Anna Short Harrington, the face of the Aunt Jemima brand, are suing Quaker Oats, their parent company PepsiCo, and Pinnacle Foods Group for $2 billion.)

Curious.

True. There is much we don't know. I'm thinking the more validity there is to the claim, we will continue to hear about it periodically. If it drops totally and permanently off the radar, 'nuff said.

I think you are exactly correct.