
Craig Zucker: What Happens When a Man Takes on the Feds - fennecfoxen
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324108204579023143974408428.html
======
justanother
Can I admit this? I used to admire this one aspect of the Federal government:
The way they'd calmly and objectively state their case, without emotion, in
indictments, in tax notices, in diplomatic letters. It was a model I strove to
emulate in my correspondance in times of personal conflict.

No longer. They are increasingly vindictive and flighty.

Perhaps it was always this way, and we have the Internet to thank for giving
us (as Paul Harvey would say) the rest of the story. At any rate, the loss of
the calm, emotionless appeal indicates a loss of pack-leader, Alpha behavior,
and among apes and most other orders of mammals, will lead directly to a loss
of respect.

------
ballard
The product may well have been redesigned to been safer, that's beside the
point.

The allegation of lack of process portrays the CPSC as unable to interact with
manufacturers in a civil manner that addresses concerns constructively. If the
US continues scaring off entrepreneurs, the US will be weaker, less
competitive and more boring as a result of bad policies.

The larger concern is that US-based thought-leaders are leaving in droves
(Woz, et al) as well as the thousand and change that queue up to relinquish
their passports every year is swelling; this may be only the beginning of the
flickering flame of American exceptionalism. [1]

PS: I also feel that fair reporting on this piece would give the CPSC the
opportunity to comment and share its views, if even to say the token "no
comment." (One side does not make a complete story.)

[1] How to relinquish citizenship
[http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html](http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html)
(8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5), obviously be certain to secure other citizenship
arrangements first)

~~~
tzs
Woz plans to become an Australian citizen, but he has said he is NOT going to
give up US citizenship.

------
dangero
This is his side of the story. Some of it does seem shady on the side of CPSC,
but my perspective is, Craig Zucker was making tons of money. Am I supposed to
believe that the money he was making didn't override his better judgement at
all?

Sounds like what happened at the end after his campaign failed was that
instead of complying and executing the full recall, he terminated the company;
taking all of the profits with him, and leaving the CPSC to clean up the mess
while he laid on a beach somewhere. Now he's complaining that didn't pan out
and he might have to give the money back.

~~~
avoutthere
What mess? The mess created by the Commission themselves? Why should he be on
the hook for their highly-questionable actions?

~~~
gamblor956
Craig Zucker created a product that harmed upwards of 80 children. _He_
created the mess, not the Commission. They were doing their job, which is to
make sure that products sold in the US are safe for use.

Buckyballs were most definitely _not_ safe, and should never have been
marketed as toys for children.

~~~
angersock
If your kid is dumb enough to eat those little balls after being a toddler, or
you as a parent are dumb enough to let your toddler play with them, well,
that's on you.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>If your kid is dumb enough to eat those little balls after being a toddler,

Kids lack the knowledge and experience needed to make a proper decision here.

>or you as a parent are dumb enough to let your toddler play with them, well,
that's on you.

Right, the things needed a label, not a ban from sale.

------
fennecfoxen
Well, I tried to have something about buckyball magnets in there when I
submitted it, but apparently this title is so much more informative. Who knew?

~~~
tzs
Current HN policy seems to be that the title from the article itself should be
used, no matter how generic and uninformative they are, and no matter how much
more useful and descriptive the submitter's chosen title is. This used to not
bug me, because I read via Google Reader, which kept the original title. Now I
use Feedly, and it updates if the title changes, meaning I often see a title,
make a mental note to read it later, and then when latter becomes now I don't
see it anymore. Grrrr.

If I ever get around to blogging and write something that is likely to get
submitted here, I'm going to give it a totally useless title like "As The Yaks
Go, So Go The Wombats" [1] that the submitter will surely replace with
something better, just to see if the HN mods would opt for the article title
even when it is absolutely dreadful. :-)

[1] Does anyone know where the phrase "as the yaks go, so go the wombats"
comes from? I used it exactly twice as a signature line on Usenet in the early
or mid '80s, but do not remember where I got it. The only hits Google shows
are a hit on my site and me asking a few years ago if anyone knew where it
came from.

~~~
simcop2387
My solution to this is to have the title randomly permute for each user so no
user sees the same title. That way there is no consistent title for the mods
to set it to.

------
jotm
Seems to me that someone powerful on the commission had a personal issue with
the owner or the product itself.

Look for the parent whose child has swallowed one of these magnets and had
surgery (or worse, had complications and died), then it all makes sense.

That doesn't make it right, of course...

------
D9u
Alcohol is dangerous, cars are dangerous, etc, etc...

This appears to be another double standard...

------
x0x0
I don't know the particulars of the claims, but I do know that:

1 - the wsj is barely distinguishable from anti-government propaganda, so
they're worthless: any claims they make need to be verified with first party
sources before belief;

2 - this happened:

    
    
       Pediatric gastroenterology specialists responding to the survey reported 
       more than 80 children with magnet ingestion. Most patients required 
       endoscopy to remove the magnets or surgery to repair damage to the bowels. 
       Twenty-six children had bowel perforation; three needed major surgery to 
       remove a section of damaged intestine. [1]
    

[1]
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120904100844.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120904100844.htm)

~~~
alextingle
> I don't know the particulars of the claims...

You confess that you don't know anything about the subject at hand,

> but I do know that... the wsj is barely distinguishable from anti-government
> propaganda

but you're happy to throw around an _ad hominem_ attack on the site that
published the story.

Right.

~~~
x0x0
ad hominem : rolleyes :

known liars make all their analyses useless: you can't tell what crucial facts
they elided or what quotes they selectively quoted; it's worse than
uninformative, because you have to question every fact presented and go dig,
as I said, for a first-party source to verify.

~~~
graeme
The WSJ's rep, last time I checked, was a solid newsroom, and a insane,
frothing at the mouth editorial team, with a strict wall between the two.

Any evidence for the idea that the news section of the WSJ is corrupted so
absolutely that they cannot be relied on in any story?

~~~
azm
Unfortunately this is in the Opinion section which has been known to be
reliably frothing at the mouth, anti-goverment, ayn randian propaganda
machine.

~~~
graeme
Oh, that does make a very big difference.

I think it's trite to say 'ad hominem' in cases like this. Ad hominem refers
to the quality of the reasoning.

Here, we depend on the WSJ for the facts as well. If they are an untrustworthy
source, that's very relevant.

------
triplesec
I don't know Zucker's current relationship with former CEO of Buckyballs Jake
Bronstein (they may be hiding him becaus of his bad PR, see below), but from
the VM in this video the company didn't necessarily represent the most stable
kind of businesspeople... and incidentally they made huge blusterings as to
their lawyering.

[http://boingboing.net/2010/09/24/buckyballs-magnet-
ma.html](http://boingboing.net/2010/09/24/buckyballs-magnet-ma.html)

------
kanja
Home of the brave, land of the free

------
shrnky
So what happens when they come for your Legos?

Bottom line: Nanny State = Risk averse Entrepreneur = Risk Taker

------
Spooky23
To me the issue here isn't the safety issue, which I think is legit. It's the
way the government seems to be behaving. The product is dead, company out of
business. Let it go.

------
Qantourisc
In the EU we laugh every day when we unpack a product. Why? They are shipped
in plastic bags suitable for international usage. And each bag has printed on
it on or more:

"This is not a toy." "Keep away from children." "Do not reuse bag."
"Immediately dispose of this bag."

So each time we receive a product, we chuckle at the US, because they need to
be told this. (Obviously the people don't need it, but your legal system
requires it.)

~~~
lutusp
> In the EU we laugh every day when we unpack a product.

And you should. The U.S. system is ruled by the fear of -- not harm to
consumers -- but lawsuits.

> "This is not a toy." "Keep away from children." "Do not reuse bag."
> "Immediately dispose of this bag."

The purpose of those warnings is to guard against predatory lawyers. The risk
to consumers is only a smokescreen.

Here's a story from the U.S.: A robber was escaping the police by sprinting
across a rooftop. He stepped onto a painted-over glass skylight, fell through,
and was injured. He successfully sued the building's owners for painting over
the skylight. True story.

> Obviously the people don't need it, but your legal system requires it.

Exactly right. But the legal system isn't about protecting consumers, it's
about defending against liability lawyers.

~~~
dalke
Do you know where the court judgement can be found? It's likely "Bodine v.
Enterprise High School", but all I can find are people commenting about the
case, and they aren't all consistent.

For example, according to most accounts, the robber was not being chased by
the police but instead was trying to steal a (or several) light fixture(s),
and the police weren't involved until after the thief fell.

Actually, researching further, it doesn't seem that there is a court
judgement. It looks like the suit was settled out of court, so it's
"successful" only in the sense that the plaintiff received money, and not in
the sense of being awarded that money.

So, I'm not sure what lesson there is from that case. Can you elaborate? After
all, no matter how many labels there might be, anyone can file a lawsuit.

Also, that court case was during the 1980s, and deals with specifics of
California law which have since changed. How does this 30 year old non-case
affect business decisions now?

~~~
lutusp
> the robber was not being chased by the police

I didn't say that. I said he was escaping the police, which he surely was.

> so it's "successful" only in the sense that the plaintiff received money ...

That was true because of the threat of a court proceeding, in the context of a
very litigous society. The thief wasn't a formal plaintiff, just an actual
one. The money settlement was less than what would have resulted from a court
proceeding, both parties knew this but accepted it for different reasons.

> So, I'm not sure what lesson there is from that case. Can you elaborate?

Certainly. A thief was injured while committing a crime. He sued the people he
was robbing and won. It's hard to make it more dramatic than a bare recitation
of the facts provides.

> How does this 30 year old non-case affect business decisions now?

* The fact that it was settled out of court doesn't mean there was no case. If that had been true, there wouldn't have been a settlement.

* The litigous environment to which this case history refers has gotten worse, not better.

~~~
dalke
The police were not involved until after the plaintiff fell through the
skylight. The plaintiff was unable to move. How is this "escaping the police"
in any sense of the phrase?

As to "He sued the people he was robbing and won", this is a blunt view of the
world that should not be used as the sole basis for deciding culpability.

Consider "I was going 10 mph over the 55 mph speed limit when the engine of my
car caught fire. I sued the car company because of their faulty engine design.
We were able to show that several other cars of the same model also caught
fire at 65 mph, and the company knew about them, but the company hadn't done
anything about it. I sued, but because I was breaking the law when it
happened, I got nothing."

In your view, is that appropriate?

Consider "That night I shoplifted a pack of gum from the store. While still in
the parking lot, I fell into an open manhole. The store had left it open for a
week, without any signs or barriers, and the outside lights weren't turned on.
I hit my head and was in a coma for 10 days. They refused to accept any
liability, because it was part of my crime of stealing the gum."

In your view, is that appropriate?

In both hypotheticals, the lawbreaker "was injured while committing a crime",
so I assume the answer to both questions is "yes."

I disagree. The commission of a crime should not automatically revalue one's
life and health to $0.

In addition, how much proof does there need to be to establish that someone
has committed a crime, before the owner's immunity kicks in? Does the person
need only to be accused of a crime, or does a full criminal conviction need to
take place first?

Do you really want there to be more criminal cases in order to reduce the
number of (rare) civil cases? Or do you really want the property owners to
make arbitrary claims, for the purpose of avoiding liability?

"The litigous environment to which this case history refers has gotten worse,
not better."

I regard that is a statement of opinion not based in fact. For example,
California Civil Code Section 847 (
[http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/847.html](http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/847.html)
), which was passed after the above lawsuit, says:

> An owner, including, but not limited to, a public entity, as defined in
> Section 811.2 of the Government Code, of any estate or any other interest in
> real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, shall not be liable to
> any person for any injury or death that occurs upon that property during the
> course of or after the commission of any of the felonies set forth in
> subdivision (b) by the injured or deceased person.

Isn't that exactly what you want for this sort of case? If not, what should
the law be?

~~~
lutusp
> The police were not involved until after the plaintiff fell through the
> skylight.

The plaintiff was committing a crime. He needed to elude the police. When he
fell, he was located where he was in order to avoid observation and arrest.

> I disagree. The commission of a crime should not automatically revalue one's
> life and health to $0.

Now that you're making my arguments for me, I think we're done here.

~~~
dalke
What I ask for is primary information. Everything I've found has been
secondary or tertiary.

You write 'He needed to elude the police.' According to sources I read, he
fell through the roof, his friends broke into the gym to help him, he was
breathing but unconscious, his friends called the fire department, and the
police arrived soon after.

Since you say that he was "eluding the police" or "escaping the police", and
the information I have found says that the police were not involved until
after fire/rescue arrived, I assume that you have better information about the
case than I have been able to find.

(Or do you mean that all criminals elude the police until they are caught? If
so, then your use of "elude" and "escaping" is atypical and confusing, and has
almost no real meaning.)

"Now that you're making my arguments for me"

I have no idea of what you are talking about. I don't understand your argument
enough to make it or counter it. Your statements are vague enough that I can't
make sense of them, and when I ask for clarification and details, you make an
uninterpretable reply.

I can only conclude that you don't care to understand and discuss the topic.
Instead, you seem to repeat worn-down anecdotes about this case which have
been repeated for 30+ years. Since then, California law was changed for the
express reason to make it harder for criminals to make these sorts of legal
claims.

Were those changes not enough? And if not, why not? What would the law need to
be in order for you to be happy?

~~~
lutusp
> Since you say that he was "eluding the police" or "escaping the police", and
> the information I have found says that the police were not involved until
> after fire/rescue arrived, I assume that you have better information about
> the case than I have been able to find.

You're conveniently overlooking the fact that he was on the roof, a pointless
activity were it not for his desire to avoid detection.

Does a person proactively make choices to avoid cancer even when no cancer is
present? Yes or no?

~~~
dalke
In the account I read, he was on the roof because he wanted to steal a light
fixture which was on the roof. Previously that evening they had tried, and
failed, to steal a floodlight from the school’s tennis courts. There was
nothing about the man trying specifically to avoid detection any more than any
other criminal would not want to be caught. Certainly the police were not at
the school.

This leads me to believe we are not talking about the same incident. I quickly
found several cases where someone fell through a skylight. For recent
examples:

\- "A 17-year-old teenager “clowning around” on the roof of Dwight D.
Eisenhower Middle School fell through a skylight Sunday night, police said."
[http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2013/07/teen_hospitaliz...](http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2013/07/teen_hospitalized_after_falling_through_skylight_of_freehold_middle_school.html)

\- "A teenage boy suffered heavy bleeding injuries Friday night after falling
15 feet through a glass skylight on the roof of a Mill Valley funeral
facility, a fire official said." [http://www.marinij.com/ci_23653365/boy-
injured-fall-through-...](http://www.marinij.com/ci_23653365/boy-injured-fall-
through-skylight-at-mill-valley)

\- "A teen was seriously hurt Monday after falling through a skylight at
Taylor Middle School" [http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque/Teen-
falls-t...](http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque/Teen-falls-
through-middle-school-skylight/-/9153728/18976122/-/5muy2dz/-/index.html)

\- "Police identified 15-year-old Kimberley Ferris as the teen who died
Tuesday after falling through a Dakota Middle School skylight"
[http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/police-identify-teen-who-
di...](http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/police-identify-teen-who-died-after-
fall-through-dakota-middle/article_7edfbac2-b7e9-11e0-8b13-001cc4c002e0.html)

These reasons for being on a roof seem to be even more pointless than stealing
a floodlight, and yet they _were_ on the roof, and were not trying to escape
or evade the police.

I tentatively conclude that you really don't know the details and have been
passing along stories you heard. As with any friend-of-a-friend stories, these
are liable to be very different than what actually happened. I similarly
conclude that you believe in the truthiness of your account, even if the truth
is somewhere else. However, the laws have changed since Bodine v. Enterprise
High School was filed, while beliefs based on echos of that case are stuck in
the Reagen era.

I don't understand your cancer reference. The answer is "yes" for some people,
"no" for others, and "irrelevant" for still others. Some people actively
pursue cigarette smoking, with its increased chance of cancer. Others choose
diets which they think will help prevent cancer. Still others know nothing
about cancer, or let it be in God's or Fate's hands.

------
shalmanese
I own several sets of buckyballs and did quite a bit of research on the issue
when it was being litigated. I have no opinions on the CPUC's later personal
litigations but I would like to note that the Buckyball corporation did a
wonderful job fanning unfair populist outrage against the CPUC and that the
story is significantly more complicated.

I have no dog in this fight but in the interest of fairness, here are points
presented from the other side:

* The risk from buckyballs is highly non-obvious and hard to intuit. I, personally, did not perceive the risk until I read about it. Most items should not be swallowed because they're a choking hazard, they have sharp edges or they contain toxic chemicals. Buckballs are small spheres of stainless steel which present none of those risks. Instead, the risk is if two balls attract each other through layers of your intestine, eventually causing gangrene and sepsis. That's not something I had ever thought about when playing with them.

* The severity of harm was far greater than other swallowing hazards. Treatment for people who improperly swallowed buckyballs involved major surgery and the removal of sections of their intestines. This is orders of magnitudes more severe than most swallowing related injuries, something which also does not fit most people's naive threat models.

* Injury happens days after the event, making cause and effect hard to pin down. The usual response to a child swallowing something improper is to monitor closely for 6 - 24 hours and only seek medical attention if something untoward is happening. Because buckyball injuries occur days after the event, it's hard to pin a stomachache problem on Thursday with swallowing on Monday and treat it with the severity it deserves.

* The design of the toy makes it intrinsically impossible to keep the warnings intact with use. It doesn't matter how dire the warnings may be on an attached sheet of paper because the toy could be sold, given away or played with second hand and there was no way to guarantee transmission that information to the 2nd party. With larger toys, the CPUC could have mandated that warnings be injection moulded into the plastic for example but there was no such recourse with buckyballs.

* There's a finite number of compelling uses of buckyballs and one of them was to make fake studs by attaching them together through a thin fold of skin. On the face, there are only 4 places where this is possible: The earlobe, the nasal cavity, the lip fold and the tongue. 3 of the 4 places allow for a swallowing hazard and magnets are very easy to make fall apart with just the wrong nudge. This greatly increased the likelihood that this toy would be swallowed compared to similar toys.

* Swallowing a single buckyball is harmless, potentially giving people a false sense of security after accidentally swallowing one and having nothing bad happen. This would make them subsequently less careful in the future.

I'm pretty libertarian but I can certainly see the CPUC's rationale in banning
these things. Yes, they're incredibly fun to play with and I still tinker with
them to this day but the safety risks shouldn't be trivialized either.

~~~
alextingle
Isn't the real story here the CPUC's attempt to breach the veil of corporate
limited liability?

~~~
makomk
As far as I'm aware, it's always been possible to breach the veil of corporate
limited liability under certain circumstances _precisely because_ of people
doing what Craig Zucker did: earning money in a way that incurs huge
liabilities or potential liabilities, for example by selling a popular but
unsafe product, then transferring all the corporation's money to themselves in
an attempt to avoid paying for those liabilities.

~~~
graeme
IANAL, but there's a large of law regarding when this can be done. The WSJ's
treatment ignored this. They treated the issue as one dimensional, turning
only on whether the statute allowed personal liability.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil)

