Talk:Robert Kearns

DAC
The United States Patent: 4494107 lists Kearns (along with James G. H. Quan) as inventor of a Digital-to-Analog Converter. I'm not sure whether or not this patent applies to modern electronics, such as the Compact Disc Player, but either way, it seems significant; It was an improvement to prior, problematic accomplishments in the field. It would be nice to list all of his known inventions (or at least his patented inventions). --Madman420 (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OSS?
The article says that he worked for the OSS during WWII, however he would have been only 18 at the end of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.19.104 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Citations have been added in the article to show that Dr. Kearns was a young teenage member serving in the OSS. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Intermittent Wiper
The intermittent wiper section borrows several sentences verbatim from an article in American Heritage, January 2007. See http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2007/1/2007_1_6.shtml: "The true solution came from Robert Kearns, an engineering professor at Wayne State University, in Detroit. The road to intermittent wipers began on his wedding night in 1953, when an errant champagne cork shot into his left eye, which eventually went almost completely blind. Nearly a decade later Kearns was driving his Ford Galaxie through a light rain, and the constant movement of the wiper blades irritated his already troubled vision. He got to thinking about the human eye, which has its own kind of wiper, the eyelid, that automatically blinks every three seconds. Why couldn’t windshield wipers work the same way?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.38.83 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Forbes list
Clarification is needed for 2005 Forbes 400 list. According to Forbes online listing http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/54/Name_8.html he is not included. 24.23.127.88 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that. I am not sure he's actually in the issue. Perhaps it's best deleted until resolved ? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

GM or Chrysler?
In the article is states he sued Ford and Chrslyer, however in the legal refrence section it says GM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdnascar (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Later, his lawsuit against General Motors was dismissed, as were his lawsuits against foreign carmakers. Much of the money he was awarded went to legal expenses." -- New York Times Obituary for Dr. Kearns, February 26, 2005. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Tale of Two Cities defense
We need a legal citation as to whether Dr. Kearns actually did use Dickens' "Tale of Two Cities" in his arguments in court in the Ford case, as it was portrayed in the movie. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs to be a legal citation. As I understand the assertion, it's that Kearns did some sort of in-court demo to prove the point.  That's unlikely to be in any document but the court transcript, which is not going to be very accessible.  But we need something other than the Flash of Genius (film) movie or its screenplay.  Movies like this are primarily made to entertain, and even those that keep pretty close to the reality (say, Apollo 13 (film)) still take some artistic license, in order to make a more compelling film.  The appearance of something in the film (and it being in the screenplay) don't support whether that thing occured in reality.


 * This isn't unique to this article; it happens where an article subject is also the subject of a popular film. For example, it's crept up once or twice in Preston Tucker and/or 1948 Tucker Sedan, as I recall, where depictions from the film Tucker: The Man and His Dream were used (erroneously, in that case) to support assertions in that article.


 * Looking at the IMDB information for the film, it lists as one of the writers "John Seabrook (article)," which suggests that there was a fact-based article on which the screenplay most likely draws. Some googling leads me to , which includes "John Seabrook … is the author of … Flash of Genius and Other True Stories of Invention (St. Martin's, 2008)."  This could be a potential source for the anecdote, if it actually happened. TJRC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Seabrook's 1993 New Yorker article on which the film was based (and which I had already read and put a link to in the article), as far as I can tell, doesn't have the Tale of Two Cities argument in it. Googling just found the film and articles related to it. Case law and legal transcripts from the actual court might be the only way unless of course one is chasing ghosts and it was poetic license in the film which I would hope wasn't the case. Looking still. Maybe Lexis/Nexis would have the case documents. Or something like it. But that's a long reading. What Dr. Kearns did in the movie in a rather dramatic moment, had his son get a copy of Dickins' "Tale of Two Cities" and a dictionary and argued that all the words in the first sentence were already in the dictionary but the unique combination of words make it special to Dickins, hence, although Kearns' invention used simple known electrical components, and Ford argued that was "obvious", Kearns wanted to show that it was his particular choice of components which still made his box unique. That was the movie version. Stumped for the moment. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted it since I can't easily corroborate that it happened in reality and not on the silver screen adaptation. Pouring through the legal transcripts is not for the feint of heart. Or calling Marc Abraham about the adaptation. That takes care of that. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

10.1 vs. 10.2
The article says he received 10.2M from Ford, while the movie said 10.1M. I am assuming that the movie would try to get its facts right, while the article lacks any citation for that. King Rhyono (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry much over what the movie said at that point as the latter half of the movie is steeped so far into feel good fantasy that the only fact it gets right is that, yes, Kearns did indeed win against Ford and later Chrysler. The assumed dates, showing the kids as late teens early 20 somethings, the courts monetary judgments, reading from books in court, and other errata are just plain false and meant to entertain at that point as the truth is much more mundane and even saddening. Kearns spent nearly 30 years of his life fighting for what amounts to, more or less, an apology, and never getting what his true dreams were, which was a family owned and run company producing and supplying intermittent windshield wipers to auto manufacturers. Kearns Ford trial was handled by lawyers in 1990, not himself and son, along with most of the Chrysler case as well. And at the end of it all he was never satisfied with the outcomes of the court cases and still wished to fight long after everything was said in done. While this isn't a forum to discuss the movie itself, I wonder if the movie would have fared better had it handled, depicted, and focused on more realistically what the man threw away, which is his family and most of his life, over what amounts to an obsession on having a corporation admitting to doing a person wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.75.57 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the kids ages would be about right. One of his sons graduated from high school in 1986 (and was a classmate of mine).  --Cmreigrut (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Death
The section ends: "Their marriage did not survive." Survive what? His death? Most don't. If this is stating that they were divorced some kind of better thought out explanation might make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.86.38 (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Before his death, the marriage ended. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Poorly written and garbled information
The section labeled “Family and career” is unintelligible. I’m not sure what information the author is trying to convey.

Thanks BelleCBelle (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)