The McFlurry Machine Company Just Got Hit With a McRestraining Order (gizmodo.com) 87
"A lawsuit between the company that makes McFlurry machines and a company that manufactures a third-party diagnostic tool for them is part of a broader 'right to repair' battle," writes Slashdot reader ttyler. Gizmodo reports: If you've been to a McDonald's at any point in the last century, you're likely familiar with the harrowing experience of being denied the frosty treat that you crave because the McFlurry machine is broken yet again. As it turns out, being broken is sort of a hallmark of McFlurry machines: Not only are they inherently fragile -- needing to withstand both cold ice cream temperatures and the heating cycles that blast them during the cleaning process -- but they're also powered by janky software and "flawed code that caused the machines to malfunction," according to a lawsuit filed against the company that produces the machines in May.
That company, Taylor, is a particularly egregious purveyor that serves as a perfect example of the exact business model right-to-repair advocates are trying to abolish: sell businesses a persnickety machine that's likely to break down, prevent them from understanding exactly where the malfunction is occurring, and then help yourself to a healthy cut of the distributors' profit from the resultant repairs. It's a racket that's so widely understood, it prompted the creation of a new company, Kytch, which manufactures a diagnostic tool specifically designed to help McDonald's franchise owners fix their own McFlurry machines. In a recent legal victory, a judge awarded a temporary restraining order against Taylor after Kytch had alleged in a complaint that the McFlurry machine manufacturer had gotten its hands on a Kytch Solution Devices with the express intention of learning its trade secrets. The complaint also alleged that Taylor had told McDonald's and its franchisees to stop using Kytch machines on the grounds that they were dangerous, and that the company had begun development on its own version of the Kytch system at the same time.
As a result of the court order, Taylor now has 24 hours to turn over all its Kytch Solution Devices. "Defendants must not use, copy, disclose, or otherwise make available in any way information, including formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process obtained by any of them," the court document said.
That company, Taylor, is a particularly egregious purveyor that serves as a perfect example of the exact business model right-to-repair advocates are trying to abolish: sell businesses a persnickety machine that's likely to break down, prevent them from understanding exactly where the malfunction is occurring, and then help yourself to a healthy cut of the distributors' profit from the resultant repairs. It's a racket that's so widely understood, it prompted the creation of a new company, Kytch, which manufactures a diagnostic tool specifically designed to help McDonald's franchise owners fix their own McFlurry machines. In a recent legal victory, a judge awarded a temporary restraining order against Taylor after Kytch had alleged in a complaint that the McFlurry machine manufacturer had gotten its hands on a Kytch Solution Devices with the express intention of learning its trade secrets. The complaint also alleged that Taylor had told McDonald's and its franchisees to stop using Kytch machines on the grounds that they were dangerous, and that the company had begun development on its own version of the Kytch system at the same time.
As a result of the court order, Taylor now has 24 hours to turn over all its Kytch Solution Devices. "Defendants must not use, copy, disclose, or otherwise make available in any way information, including formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process obtained by any of them," the court document said.
Re:trade secrets (Score:5, Informative)
The legal ruling is a one off, likst most of them. In many cases, both sides of the suit are "right", yet the judge just decide who the winner is, and further what the remedy shall be. In this particular case, the judge has decided that Taylor is intentionally trying to put Kytch out of business using a practice that is unfair to competition, whereas Kytch is not trying to put Taylor out of business but just allow owners of machines to repair them. The remedy then is for Taylor to turn over the devices that it purchased for the express purpose of reverse engineering.
Likely the judge's ruling is based upon "reverse engineering for the lawful purpose of having customers repair their own property" versus "reverse engineering so that customers are unable to repair a product themselves". And further that the judge decided that a one company cannot thwart a customer's attempts to repair its own equipment. This part possibly could become precedent if other judges follow suit in similar cars. However the remedy here (turn over you device you were trying to reverse engineer) is applicable only to this case and to no one else.
So in short, it doesn't affect you.
Re: (Score:2)
Kytch litigious nature might affect me if they think I'm repairing their product.
Re: (Score:2)
Kytch is the one making the repair tools, Taylor is the one fighting against repair.
Re: (Score:2)
Who watches the watchmen?
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahaha
Re: (Score:2)
Who watches the watchmen?
Enough people to rack up $185 million box office revenue according to Wikipedia, but I don't see what a comic book movie [wikipedia.org] has to do with repairing McFlurry machines. Was there a co-promotion?
Re: (Score:2)
I wish Slashdot had a laugh reaction.
The original post was alluding to a famous Latin phrase, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The most literal translation is "Who will guard the guards themselves?", though other translations have been used including "Who will watch the watchmen?" It's a caution about controlling the actions of people in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks :-)
Re:trade secrets (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think Taylor has developed a Kytch type machine but they are in the process of developing one and thought it would be a brilliant shortcut to just copy the Kytch machine.
Re: (Score:3)
And what is wrong with that? Nothing wrong with reverse engineering a product and making one of your own - you might have to redo patented, trademarked, or copyrighted parts, but you can build your own. If you buy a product, who owns it? What control should Kytch really have over the product that Taylor legally bought?
Taylor is not playing fair with their proprietary tech and machines designed to require service. But that is a separate issue. Kytch loses control of its products once those products are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA
Monopoly
Restraint of trade
Copyright
Trademark
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so solution is Taylor gives up the products, then hires an outside contractor for a large $$$ sum with scope of work being to Investigate Kytch by confidential means and methods of the contractor's choosing Not to be disclosed to Taylor: for an upfront fee and a larger fee if they manage to produce as deliverable detailed technical blueprints and complete analysis of Kytch's products' design operation all processes and method sufficient to demonstrate a working simulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
maybe they'd be able to make a reliable machine (or keep spares around) in the first place
OF COURSE Taylor could make a reliable machine if they wanted - that would cannibalize the manufacturer's revenue from selling software, services and new machines, however..
Second, I am sure Taylor would be HAPPY to sell additional units to restaurants in order for them to keep as spares. Why wouldn't they? It's not them who won't spend the money - the franchises/individual restaurants don't want to pay any
Re: (Score:2)
Being a Franchisee of any kind seems like a bad deal - you've decided to put all of your eggs in one basket even if the basket is full of holes.
Re: (Score:3)
"But Kytch can get a Taylor machine and reverse engineer its trade secrets and that is just fine?"
Kytch was working legitimately on an automated frozen yogurt dispenser that wrapped around a Taylor machine, and wound up developing their maintenance device to fix the problems of Taylor's crappy product [wired.com].
Re: trade secrets (Score:2)
Do we know the machine was obtained fraudulently. Maybe they bought one second hand which, thanks to the first-sale doctrine, is going to be legal, at least for the purchaser.
Not that I don't think the right to repair isn't a good thing or the Taylor is in the right here but, of itself, obtaining a competitor's product isn't illegal.
Re: trade secrets (Score:4, Informative)
Re:trade secrets (Score:4, Informative)
The company that makes the machine can't count on any of my sympathy. Their business is to purposely create a faulty machine, that screws over the McDonald franchise charging excessively for "repair". That company doesn't send repair persons very quickly.
A proper user manual is also not available and the user interface on the machine itself is made unclear on purpose. At night these machines need to go through their cleaning routine, and it fails to complete this with the slightest error, which is not communicated to the user.
As fastfood restaurants are usually staffed with not so knowledgeable people, in the morning they just see the machine and a message that the cleaning routine failed to complete. So the machine is "broken" until further notice.
In the end the customer at McD is told "no" when trying to buy ice cream and that will lose them business. Management at McD doesn't do much about the situation as they appear top receive a "healthy" financial kick-back from the machine's manufacturer and in return management tells franchise owners that they are not allowed to get an ice cream machine that does work reliably.
The manufacturer only creates machines for McD, not for any of the other fast food chains, as those don't want to go into their game of fleecing franchise owners and customers. Those companies do know the negative effect of "selling no" to customers.
If the company Taylor would be on fire, the only solution to try and quench the flames would be gasoline. And that would be more than they deserve, even with these low gas prices...
Re: (Score:3)
I can't be bothered to look it up but I saw a video recently about these machines. They can produce an error code that is not explained anywhere and needs to be reset by a Taylor repair person for something as simple as filling the machine with too much water during the cleaning cycle.
As you stated, Taylor basically makes these machines so that they fail frequently and then need Taylor repair people to "fix" them. The repair cost for one of these "fixes" (which if I recall was basically just resetting the m
Re:trade secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to repair applies to faulty machinery, so you can repair the machinery, not the solution to it so you can repair your faulty business model.
McDonald's can just tell franchise use them and lo (Score:2)
McDonald's can just tell franchise use them and lose your franchise
Re: (Score:3)
Re:McDonald's can just tell franchise use them and (Score:5, Informative)
They certainly do, as long as Taylor is the one repairing the machines.
The REAL Reason McDonalds Ice Cream Machines Are Always Broken
https://youtu.be/SrDEtSlqJC4?t... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
McDonald's has a vested interest in keeping their potato starch drink machines operational.
Do they? Many other FF-restaurants, including Wendy's and Jack-in-the-Box use the same machine. Yet only McDonald's has so much trouble keeping them operational.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know which machine they use, but the two closest Burger Kings to my house have had broken ice cream machines since April.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And as we can see at you, it works like a charm.
All the while, the sane portion of the population doesn't get worked up over first world problems.
Re:McDonald's can just tell franchise use them and (Score:4, Informative)
It's not the same machine. McD's has a specific model that's custom to McD's. That model is similar to other machines, but is basically designed to fail on the slightest errors that really are non-errors on other machines.
All the other chains have much more reliable machines because they're not so buddy-buddy with Taylor. If their machine was just as unreliable, they'd be junked.
We're not talking about errors that are fatal like a part malfunctions. We're talking trivial errors - if you overfill the mix container with too much mix, it'll take longer to cool down. That's an error that locks out the machine on McD's model, requiring a $200 service call. During a cleaning cycle, if you put in too much water or cleaning solution, same thing - it took too long to heat the cleaning agent or water therefore a service call is needed. It's a trivial problem that's basically designed to generate service calls.
For other chains, when the machines break down, it usually means there's a problem and yes, you really call in a service guy to fix it but it can take hours to fix. For a McD's problem, it's trivial to fix usually by pushing a few buttons on the machine.
What I want to know is despite having the McD's service manual leaked, why it isn't more commonly available. Of course, McD's will make having such content available in the restaurant illegal, but I'm sure a manager having it on their personal phone could get away with fixing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is only the McDonald's machines that are always broken. The same company makes machines for other restaurants and they have much easier to understand error codes and are self maintainable. Basically, they always work. But the ones under contract with McDonald's for the franchisees has error codes that don't tell you what to do and everything requires you to call a service rep. All they can really do is run the cycle again, it takes a couple of hours to run, and it fails due to some temperature
Re:McDonald's can just tell franchise use them and (Score:5, Informative)
That's pretty much what they did.
The McDonald's version of the machine is designed to be extra crappy and break down extra often, because Taylor was literally the spawn of McD's.
Because in real life, Taylor makes machines for everyone - McD's, Wendy's, A&W, Burger King, etc. You name it, if they serve some form of cold dairy treat, it comes from a Taylor machine.
Yet, when you think about it, McD's machines are known for being out of service. None of the other chains have machines that break down.
And it's that buddy-buddy chum thing that Taylor and McD's has. Because McD's orders a special McD's model (it's in the franchise contract), that machine guarantees Taylor makes a lot of money from servicing that one machine because it will break down daily and at $200 a pop for a tech to hit a few buttons and reset it, that's a fair chunk of change. It's why service calls are pretty much half of Taylor's revenues.
But the other chains? Taylor has to compete - if those machines broke down with the frequency that McD's machines did, they'd be trashed chainwide and replaced with a more reliable machine, likely from a competitor. So no surprise, those Taylor machines are utterly reliable.
Half the error codes that a McD's machine would throw are basically handled by the machine they sell to other chains. The most common one is basically a timeout expired when heating or cooling, which can happen if you overfill the tank with mix. Well, on McD's machine, that timeout window is narrow ensuring if you so much as pour a drop too much mix into the machine, it'll error out, And if you pour a drop too little, it'll error out. On everyone else's machine, the timeout is far more reasonable - it'll error out if you attempt a cycle with no mix in the tray (obviously an error), or if it honestly took way too long (which means something is broken). And you can bet the former (no mix) is probably cleared by the manager pushing a button or two to reset it and try again.
The little dongle is basically that - what are user-fixable problems and user-clearable errors on everyone else's machine is a technician required service call on a McD's machine.
And yes, McD's does enforce it, because the franchisee lease the property their restaurant sits on from McD's. If such devices are found, the franchisee could be locked out of their own restaurant.
It really makes you wonder why franchisees don't work with another business to do nothing buy sell cold dairy products. Someone selling soft serve cones, mixed soft serve with candy, etc and partner up with franchisees. The franchisee would simply send customers wanting the cold treat over, or figure out a way to allow them to work together. It is a real business need, after all. Then the franchisee doesn't have to care that their machine is broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Collusion and it's not illegal.
Really a story about franchising (Score:2)
That you sign up with someone else to control your business. And have no say over the controller. It is not even a cooperative in which other franchises have a vote. Your only option is to lose your investment and run.
I am surprised that the model is so popular in the USA. It is somewhat popular in Australia too, but less so. And the bottom line is that you always hear about franchises getting skrewed. (Surprisingly, the ones that make a fortune never complain...)
Nothing I can do (Score:1)
I can't boycott them over this. I am already doing so because their app was so infuriating to use. I'd order inside, but whoops! Germ laden touch screen ordering. Also they changed the McNuggets recipe sometime around 2016 and they taste sour and rancid on purpose now. I really can't refuse to go there any harder than I already am.
Dairy Queen should be the one suing. (Score:5, Insightful)
McFlurry was just a rip-off of the Blizzard!
Re: (Score:1)
I think you have it backward.
The Court has ordered only Taylor to hand over devices. Taylor is not a customer of Kytch. Taylor has been accused of trying to introduce changes to their machines in order to nullify the effectiveness of the Kytch device. To make the device inoperable or unreliable would be a deliberate act of sabotage against Kytch's customers.
The Court has it right.
the free market fails again ? (Score:2)
unreliable, expensive machine with a company that provides poor customer service.
shouldn't there be competition of some sort for the machine itself ?
Re: (Score:2)
For once the free market isn't to blame. If you're a franchise taker of McCrap you're forced to use the broken-by-design machines.
If anything, it's a monopoly situation.
Had me worried for a minute (Score:2)
I thought this might affect their Slushie machine! But thankfully, no.
(Hopefully 7-11 won't realize that McDonalds is basically selling Slurpees)
Re: (Score:2)
7-11 only has a trademark on Slurpee. Chrushed flavored ice drinks are everywhere, including one you've probable seen at other convenience stores, ICEE. But pretty much any mom and pop convenience store has a machine designed for it and it's pretty much everywhere.
Granted, the difference between ICEE and Slurpee is probably a lot closer than say, Coca-Cola vs. Peps
A fascinating 30 minute video on this whole topic (Score:5, Interesting)
"The REAL Reason McDonalds Ice Cream Machines Are Always Broken"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I wouldn't be surprised if that video was part of the decision to issue the restraining order against Taylor.
Buy Different Machines (Score:4, Insightful)
If these machines really do break down frequently, why doesn't McDonalds find someone else to make them who can design them to be more reliable? A quick search tells me that they've been selling McFlurrys since 1997, so even if there are patents on the machines, any critical ones would have expired. It just seems crazy that they would put up with a single source of a critical item that has proven to be unreliable.
Re: (Score:3)
> why doesn't McDonalds find someone else to make them
Read some of the other comments - there's an incestuous and self-dealing relationship between the companies with both profiting from machine repairs.
It's not for the good of the customers, that's for sure. Well maybe it is if they don't eat that crap!
Re: (Score:2)
How can one eat it if the machine is always broken?
Re: (Score:2)
There's obviously something fishy in the relationship between McD's corporate, and Taylor, who makes the machines.
Ultimately, I'd imagine that this relationship benefits McD's corporate in some way, wherein it's a method to pull additional profit from the franchisee beyond what is established in their partnership agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't even make sense. One of those companies MUST sell product to customers in order to PAY for the repairs. Maybe the machine maker profits from the service but McDonalds surely loses out on customer revenue as well as paying for the repair.
So no, McDonalds does not have an an incentive to repair the machine. They're incentivized to keep it running as much as possible to maximize ice cream sales. If there is some other goal aside from maximizing ice cr
Re: (Score:2)
The franchises have to buy them, and McDonalds want the experience to be consistent everywhere, so if they changed they would have to change thousands of machines and the franchises wouldn't be happy about it.
Changing them would also be admitting there is a problem, and the franchises would probably want some compensation.
McFlurry machine? (Score:3)
Fuck Taylor (Score:2)
There was a documentary about this particular machine. https://youtu.be/SrDEtSlqJC4 [youtu.be] It is engineered to fail often in order to sell more maintenance services. McDonald's is okay with this and mandates that franchisees must use this crappy machine.
There's a website to find working McFlurry machines. https://mcbroken.com/ [mcbroken.com]
Franchisees are the victim (Score:5, Informative)
An important angle here that was missed:
Franchisees are forced to buy this model of machine by McDonalds. They can't even get another model from Taylor. let alone another manufacturer. But the franchisee has to pay the bill to have the thing fixed. The franchisee has to deal with the thing. So if the franchisee says, wow, this machine sucks, lets go with another model, they can't. So there is a concern that McDonalds corporation and Taylor may work together to make a machine that breaks easily so to squeeze more money out of franchisees. Remember if you go to a McDonalds, you are buying your McFlurry from franchisee, not from McDonalds corporate, and the franchisee has to pay whatever fees McDonalds demands, has to buy exactly what McDonalds tells them to buy, etc. And franchisee has to pay for the repair of these things when they break. Wendy's branches don't seem to have this problem, yet they also use Taylor machines. So apparently Wendy's can get a model that doesn't breakdown all of the time, and Taylor can sell you one, but if your a McDonalds franchisee, you have to buy the model that seems to break.
Re: Franchisees are the victim (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, something like 95% of McD's are franchise owned, and the remaining are owned by McD's corporate itself.
You might be confusing it with the fact that the LAND most McD's operates are owned by McD itself - the franchisee leases the land from McD to operate that restauran
So this is really a story about franchising (Score:2)
You'd have to be braver than I to be a franchisee. I suppose that some must make a lot of money out of the deal.
just tell the mcmagnger 5231 (Score:2, Informative)
just tell the mcmagnger 5231
McDonalds should have just done it themselves (Score:2)
A company their size could easily afford to hire an engineering team to build a rock solid design for their franchisees after seeing the sort of problems this vendor was causing them. It amazes me that McDonalds puts up with a vendor who makes a joke out of one of their most recognized and desired products such that people think of it in very (for marketing) negative terms with regard to availability.
Re: (Score:3)
As others have explained, McDonald's corporate is in on the scam. It's the franchise owners who get McScrewed.
Re: (Score:1)
... and if this can be proven then it's illegal as hell. There's plenty of anti trust precedent in this area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, you realize that Taylor (the maker of the machines) was spawned from McD - McD designed the machines and
Wait a while (Score:2)
And we will all have 'McFlurry machines' as companies put tighter and tighter restrictions on everything, and not only is there nowhere to run but we will be abused and deal with crap but super-secured against the user software forever more.
I saw the documentary on the McFlurry machine and it shows all of the hallmarks of a locked down and suffocating 'ecosystem': crap hardware, outdated stone age user interface, being nickled and dimed to death on 'repairs' only a licensed tech is allowed to do, and foreve
flakes (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
McFlurry making is patented? (Score:2)
What the heck? Nobody else can make a competing, but reliable, McFlurry machine?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a problem of capability, more one of intent. A machine is far more profitable for you if you can force repair costs down your customer's throat.
Re: McFlurry making is patented? (Score:2)
That only works if someone is enabling you to have a monopoly on it, so you have no competition.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's what's basically happening here, McD forces its franchise partners to take that machine.
There was a pretty good video on this (Score:2)
Sonos (Score:1)
Sonos - pay attention here!
Has No One Seen The Founder? (Score:2)
I highly recommend a great movie about Ray Kroc and the creation of McDonald's as we know it.
The Founder [netflix.com]
It's . . . not a favorable treatment of the early days. I really don't know how anyone could be surprised by this McFlurry story. I can really think of few business opportunities which would be more soul-sucking than owning a fast-food franchise.
They always say this kind of shit (Score:2)
The complaint also alleged that Taylor had told McDonald's and its franchisees to stop using Kytch machines on the grounds that they were dangerous,
I recently replaced a control board in an Atwood (owned by Dometic) furnace with a replacement from Dinosaur Electronics. This was funny (and relevant to the current story) because there was a sticker in the unit which said that you should replace the board only with an original unit because replacements made by another "angency" might not have correct safety features. What makes it funny besides the misspelling (what, a third party might not have your, uh, attention to detail?) was that I was replacing the
I bet (Score:1)
A gap in the market (Score:2)