'Flash of Genius' Takes a Swipe at Ford
Who killed the intermittent windshield wiper?
Nobody, actually. But “Flash of Genius,” a new movie from Universal opening Friday, tells the story of Robert Kearns, who claimed to have come up with the idea for off-again, on-again wipers — and then spent much of his life suing the automakers he accused of ripping off his idea.
It’s a classic Hollywood David vs. Goliath story. Kearns, played by Greg Kinnear, below, was a lowly engineering instructor who came up with a design for an off-again, on-again windshield wiper while tinkering in his basement workshop in the early 1960s.
Efforts to sell his patented invention to Ford came to naught and the automaker, which had been working on its own designs, began selling cars equipped with intermittent wipers in 1969. Kearns sued Ford in 1978 for $141 million (an amount that eventually rose to $325 million) and went after Chrysler four years later.
After years of litigation, Ford offered to settle the case for $30 million, but Kearns rebuffed the offer. In 1990, a federal jury found that Ford had unintentionally infringed on Kearns’ patent and awarded the inventor $10 million.
Kearns, who eventually filed lawsuits against 26 companies, also got a big chunk of money out of Chrysler. He died in 2005.
Up to Speed hasn’t seen the film yet (we opted for a screening of this weekend’s other big release, “Beverly Hills Chihuahua”). But based on the previews and several of the reviews, Ford doesn’t exactly come off as a model of corporate rectitude. (Indeed, the movie's depiction of the automaker's behavior launched Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times on a rant against Wall Street, the Bush administration and general capitalist chicanery that reads more like an op-ed piece than a film review.)
Director Marc Abraham has said in interviews that he actually sympathized with the automaker a bit in its attempts to deal with Kearns, who by most accounts could be quirky and hard to handle. But Abraham also said he thinks his hero did indeed come up with the idea on his own and Ford was “denying him his dignity.”
Whether Ford comes off as badly as General Motors did in the 2006 documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” remains to be seen. A big-screen battle over wiper settings will certainly carry less of a punch in rain-starved Southern California, where windshield wipers are of considerably less interest than alleged efforts to crush the development of environmentally friendly vehicles. (The weather may actually be working in favor of “Flash of Genius” though; showers are in the forecast for Saturday.)
The folks at Blue Oval HQ, looking to get out ahead of the story, have posted a timeline on their website that has one of their engineers demonstrating an intermittent-wiper system in 1959, four years before Kearns came up with his design.
Beyond those claims, Ford said it “sees no value in rehashing the history of a legal case that was resolved in court almost 20 years ago, when a jury ruled that Ford did not willfully violate Mr. Kearns’ patent.”
Critics have found the film intermittently entertaining. About 70% of the reviews have been positive, according to RottenTomatoes.com -- a good-but-not-great critical endorsement.
Paul Dergarabedian of Media by Numbers thinks the movie, which is opening in about 1,000 theaters, could do well with older audiences, who tend to read reviews, as well as moviegoers looking for a film that doesn’t feature talking dogs.
-- Martin Zimmerman
Photos from "Flash of Genius" from Universal Pictures
Since when does it become acceptable for the Tmes to let some twit who hasn't seen a movie review it? And, might I add, sully the name of a pretty terrific movie critic in the same 'review'. Standards? Apparently none.
Posted by: Markus | October 02, 2008 at 08:12 PM
This issue should have been settled by the name and date on the patent for the device. That is what patents are all about. If Ford and whomever else invented the system previously, but did not bother to patent it then they have no claim or defense. Whether Ford was "willful" or not is also not an issue as they have the responsibility to at least search patents when the produce a new device to see whether or not it existed in the domain of claimed ideas. They knew what they were doing and bought a judge to that extent, but fortunately the man in a gown did not fail justice completely and came through with something.
If we do not honor our institutions we will no longer have them or benefit from them. It is just that simple.
Adrian Vance
Posted by: Adrian Vance | October 04, 2008 at 05:54 AM
NIce name-calling Markus, just what the web always needs...
Lots of "inventors" think they're the only ones who could have possibly come up with an idea. The reality is often different.
And theatrical movies are no place to find out the "truth" of history.
Posted by: LPB | October 04, 2008 at 06:17 AM
Markus, look at the top of the page. This is the AUTO blog, not a film review. Read that top part again, "THE LATEST AUTO NEWS, TIPS AND TRENDS." And Ebert's film review IS more of an op-ed piece than a film review. The film's title isn't even mentioned until the fourth paragraph. And that starts out, "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." Ebert is admitting even in his own review that he wasn't reviewing the film up until that point. I urge you to read the review and then try to say that it is only a movie review and contains no editorial content on business.
Posted by: John | October 04, 2008 at 08:36 AM
It's not really a review is it? It doesn't even make any claims or attempt to disguise itself as a review.
The link to the page:
Truth or fiction: Ford's response to "Flash of Genius"
Posted by: Roy | October 04, 2008 at 10:27 AM
At a time when Ford is in such deep trouble, along with the entire economy, it seems somehow unfair to re-hash a 30 year old story, one in which Ford was not found to be at fault.
It is perfectly possible for two people to have similar ideas at the same time.
Posted by: George Bishopric | October 04, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Is the quote; "Critis found the film INTERMITTENTLY entertainimg" a bad pun?
Posted by: Glenn | October 04, 2008 at 03:15 PM
"Up to Speed hasn’t seen the film yet (we opted for a screening of this weekend’s other big release, “Beverly Hills Chihuahua”)."
That's all one needs to know about this blogger.
Posted by: Anon | October 05, 2008 at 12:14 PM
O/T .. but another pov
Is that a 1968 MKIII in the photo? They were ridiculed at the time, but ... I wish they still made cars like that.
40 years later, my multi-valve, superhighpressure direct injected turbocharged overhead cam engine doesn't go at low speeds (sits like a stone from 0-15mph, then the turbo hits), throws gas into the oil (won't last 100K doing that), needs computer updates to reduce power and is known for about 2 in 1000 blowing up in the 1st year. The bumpers stop 8" from the corners, so a light bump can take out $2-3 thousand worth of stuff, and the plastic bumper cover scratches at the slightest touch ($700, it's multistep paint). The engine has super-soft mounts to quell the inherent 4-cyl vibrations, but that makes it flop around binds up the shifting (manual shift).
People just stupidly accept that modern cars are quirky, delicate and resist being upgraded. This was not always the case.
Oh, yeah, how is this relevant? Well, I think it shows how management and stupid buyers sunk Detroit. They had fine engineers, but people bought advertising and vynyl roofs. Whenever Detroit offered innovation (Ford's seat belts in the '50s, Olds Toronado in '66, fuel injection, Chrysler's tank-like large vehicles, limited-slip differentials) consumers ran the other way. They got the message and poured on the fluff. Once the public started buying with numbers they were sunk.
Posted by: Robert | October 05, 2008 at 12:47 PM
I just saw the movie.
It was an interesting study in psychiatry. Can a windshield wiper really that exciting?
So if you're interested in character development etc. and have not seen this subject (not window wipers) done many times before, you'll enjoy the movie.
Posted by: Barney | October 05, 2008 at 05:03 PM
why would you review a movie you did not see, why would the LA times publish it? Your preference was to see the one about the little dog, why would we care what you think, you have already established your lack of taste and credibility. Your an idiot.
Posted by: rp | October 05, 2008 at 05:09 PM
Having driven a 1964 Lincoln Continental with variably intermittent windshield wipers, I suspect the case is more complex than a movie might portray. In any case, it's a lot easier to sell a diatribe against American industry than a paean for it. As for Ebert, well...
Posted by: Steven Peters | October 05, 2008 at 06:40 PM
As LPB notes for Markus, must similarly be noted for rp . . . this is not a review. And one thing is certain, good, bad or otherwise, the LA Times knows that if 'you're' going to call someone names, you use the contraction for 'you are' not 'your' - gee, the state of third grade grammar on these blogs ain't pretty . . .
Posted by: Hard Rock | October 05, 2008 at 07:39 PM
its simple in patent law if you infringe a patent you are guilty of infringement, and you should have to pay a reasonable royalty for that infirngement, it does not matter if it was wilful or not you infringed the patent. now the willful part is important because if you can prove that then you can ask for punitive damages, in other words you ask for more money to "teach them a lesson for being mean on purpose"
Posted by: jay | October 05, 2008 at 09:47 PM
What's new? History is sullied with the names of inventors whose creations were ripped off by coworkers, faculty advisers or big money-grubbing corporations. Take a look at the LASER to see how the guy who invented it was even robbed of the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Posted by: J in Pasadena | October 05, 2008 at 10:05 PM
This proves the adage that a patent is a license to hire a lawyer and to break your heart ever after in litigation. I have a patent only because the Army needed a patent to come out of a research project they funded. But I could find enough prior art to overturn it in about 20 minutes. The same way I did when two other companies came after my employer when they tried to accuse of infringement. Maybe 1 in 100 patents is strong enough to actually make someone some money. Most are just for the patentee's vanity.
And, myself I saw a magazine article in 1964 for an intermittent windshield wiper controller and I built one in 1969. There were other ones using relays, dating back another 20 years.
Posted by: Dan | October 06, 2008 at 12:18 PM