Flash of Genius is based on the true story of Bob Kearns,

inventor and professor, who came up with a design for the

intermittent wiper used today. At the beginning of the
movie he is teaching a course in applied electrical
engineering and on the first day of class he wrote the word
ethics on the blackboard. He stated that engineers
designed both the artificial aorta heart valve and the gas
chambers of Auschwitz. One saved thousands of lives
while the other took millions. The point being that
engineering can be used for good and evil and it is up to
the individual to apply it for the benefit of society.
Kearns initially showed his invention to a good friend and
part owner of Pervick Automotive, Gil Pervick. Pervick
Automotive put up the seed money to file for Kearnss
invention and agreed to help finance the manufacturing of
it. Pervick Automotive held claim to the patent that was
awarded in Dec.1964. Pervick did business with several of
the auto manufacturers and set up a demonstration with
Kearns to the Ford Motor Companys chief engineers
which led to a subsequent meeting with a Ford executive,
Macklin Tyler. They were very impressed and requested a
sample unit to submit, they claimed, to the US
Government as required for safety reasons. After Kearns
and Pervick provided the unit to Ford, Pervick later
informed Kearns that Ford no longer showed interest in
pursuing his invention. However, intermittent wipers
began showing up in cars produced by Ford. Pervick tried
to slow Kearns down from seeking justice against Ford
and suggested that he scale back on his strong rhetoric.
Pervick was concerned about preserving Pervick Autos
relationship with the auto makers and the $17 million
worth of business they do with them.
Kearns finally retained a law firm to go after Ford. In
order to save Pervick Automotive from future litigation
and to exclude them from having to testify against their
customers, Pervick suggested that Kearns sue him as well
which allowed his company to settle and assigned claims
to the patents over to Kearns. The law firm received a
settlement offer of $250,000 from Ford. But without
admission of stealing his invention, Kearns refused the
offer. The law firm later ceased to pursue the suit and
dumped Kearnss case. Kearns went on to take Ford to
patent court. Long before trial, Kearns received a $1
million settlement offer directly from Ford, but without
their admission of stealing his invention he refused.
Before the end of the court proceedings, Ford approached
Kearns at his home with a settlement offer of $30 million,
but Kearns and his children refused after going this far. At
the trial Fords lawyers claimed that Kearns used simple
electrical components that had been around for years but
just rearranged them and really did not invent anything
new. Kearns used the book A Tale of Two Cities to
argue that Dickens did not invent any new words when he
wrote that masterpiece yet he did create something new
and unique. Kearns won the case against Ford in 1990 and
was awarded $10.1 million. He later won a suit against
Chrysler in 1992 for $18.7 million. During this long
ordeal his marriage was ruined, had a stint at a mental
hospital for a nervous breakdown, and was fairly non
existent during his childrens upbringing. In the movie the
kids later came to his side and help Kearns put together his
case against Ford. His ex-wife was also present during the
final court proceedings.
I thought the business world and Ford was portrayed in a
neutral to slightly negative light. The movie took place in
Detroit throughout the 1960s and 70s during the citys
heyday. Ford Motor Company was a big player in that city
and one of the largest corporations in the world. Ford
employed thousands of workers directly, kept many local
suppliers in business, and contributed greatly to the
prosperity of the community. Having said that, Ford
certainly leveraged its power and influence to do what was
in the best interest of Ford, as one might expect from a
large corporation
Ford was to some extent envied and respected by every
one of the characters in the movie. Ford executives were
seen going to church, Ford put on extravagant shows, and
the enormity of Fords facilities were often shown in the
background. In all of the interactions between characters,
there was always a sense of respect and decency in how
they spoke to one another. Even though some of the
conversations got heated, no profanities or derogatory
comments were made toward other characters, even when
they were not present. A few exceptions were when the
lawyer representing Kearns questioned Kearnss lack of
common sense and pride to take credit for the invention
for not wanting to take the $250,000, and when a Ford
negotiator called Kearns an asshole behind a closed
door after failing to get him to agree to the $1 million
offer. But there did not seem to be any extreme animosity

Flash of Genius se basa en la verdadera historia de Bob Kearns,

inventor y profesor, que vino con un diseo del limpiaparabrisas
intermitente utilizado hoy. Al principio de la pelcula est
enseando un curso de ingeniera elctrica aplicada y en el primer
da de clase, escribi la palabra "tica" en la pizarra. Afirm que
los ingenieros disearon tanto la vlvula aortica del corazn
artificial y las cmaras de gas de Auschwitz. Una salva miles de
vidas, mientras que el otro tom millones. El punto es que la
ingeniera se puede utilizar para el bien y el mal y es hasta el
individuo para aplicarla en beneficio de la sociedad.
Kearns mostr inicialmente su invencin a un buen amigo y
copropietario de Pervick Automotriz, Gil Pervick. Pervick
Automotriz puso el capital inicial para solicitar el invento de
Kearns y acord ayudar a financiar la fabricacin de la misma.
Pervick Automocin celebr reivindicacin de la patente que se
adjudic en dic.1964. Pervick hizo negocios con varios de los
fabricantes de automviles y estableci una demostracin con
Kearns a los principales ingenieros de la Ford Motor Company
que dieron lugar a una prxima reunin con un ejecutivo de Ford,
Macklin Tyler. Ellos quedaron muy impresionados y solicitaron
una unidad de muestra que presente, segn ellos, al Gobierno de
Estados Unidos segn se requiera por razones de seguridad.
Despus de que Kearns y Pervick proveyeron una unidad a Ford,
ms tarde Pervick inform a Kearns que Ford ya no mostr
inters en continuar su invencin. Sin embargo, limpiaparabrisas
intermitentes comenzaron a aparecer en los coches producidos
por Ford. Pervick intent frenar Kearns abajo desde la bsqueda
de la justicia contra Ford y le sugiri que escalar de nuevo en su
fuerte retrica. Pervick estaba preocupado por la preservacin de
la relacin de Pervick automtico con los fabricantes de
automviles y el valor de negocio de $ 17 millones que hacen con
ellos.
Kearns finalmente retuvo un bufete de abogados para perseguir a
Ford. Para ahorrar Pervick Automotriz de futuros litigios y
excluirlos de tener que declarar contra sus clientes, Pervick
sugiri que Kearns demandarlo as que permiti que su empresa
se asiente y reclamaciones a las patentes asignado a Kearns. El
bufete de abogados recibi una oferta de acuerdo de 250.000
dlares de Ford. Pero sin admisin de robar su invento, Kearns
rechaz la oferta. El bufete de abogados ms tarde dej de
perseguir el traje y arroj el caso de Kearns. Kearns lleg a tomar
Ford a los tribunales de patentes. Mucho antes de que el juicio,
Kearns recibi una oferta de liquidacin 1.000.000 dlares
directamente de Ford, pero sin su admisin de robar su invento se
neg. Antes del final de los procedimientos judiciales, Ford se
acerc Kearns en su casa con una oferta de acuerdo de $ 30
millones, pero Kearns y sus hijos se neg despus de ir tan lejos.
En el juicio los abogados de Ford afirmaron que Kearns utiliza
componentes elctricos simples que haban existido durante aos,
pero slo les reorganizan y realmente no inventaron nada nuevo.
Kearns utiliza el libro "Historia de dos ciudades" para argumentar
que Dickens no invent nuevas palabras cuando escribi esa obra
maestra sin embargo lo hizo crear algo nuevo y nico. Kearns
gan el caso en contra de Ford en 1990 y fue galardonado con $
10.100.000. Ms tarde gan una demanda en contra de Chrysler
en 1992 por $ 18.7 millones. Durante este largo calvario de su
matrimonio se arruin, tuvo una temporada en un hospital
psiquitrico para un ataque de nervios, y era bastante inexistente
durante la crianza de sus hijos. En la pelcula los nios ms tarde
lleg a su lado y ayudan Kearns forma su caso en contra de Ford.
Su ex mujer tambin estuvo presente durante las actuaciones
judiciales firmes.
Pens que el mundo de los negocios y Ford fue retratado en una
luz neutral a ligeramente negativo. La pelcula tuvo lugar en
Detroit durante los aos 1960 y 70 durante el apogeo de la ciudad.
Ford Motor Company fue un gran jugador en esa ciudad y una de
las corporaciones ms grandes del mundo. Ford emplea a miles de
trabajadores directamente, mantuvo muchos proveedores locales
en los negocios, y contribuy en gran medida a la prosperidad de
la comunidad. Una vez dicho esto, sin duda Ford aprovech su
poder e influencia para hacer lo que era en el mejor inters de
Ford, como uno podra esperar de una gran empresa
Ford fue en cierta medida envidiado y respetado por todos uno de
los personajes de la pelcula. Los ejecutivos de Ford fueron vistos
yendo a la iglesia, Ford puso en espectculos extravagantes, y la
enormidad de las instalaciones de Ford se muestra a menudo en el
fondo. En todas las interacciones entre los personajes, siempre
haba un sentido de respeto y decencia en la forma en que
hablaban entre s. A pesar de que algunas de las conversaciones
obtuve calienta, no se hicieron insultos o comentarios despectivos
hacia otros personajes, incluso cuando no estaban presentes.
Algunas excepciones fueron cuando el abogado que representa a
Kearns cuestion la falta de Kearns del sentido comn y el
orgullo de tomar el crdito para la invencin por no querer tomar
los $ 250.000, y cuando un negociador Ford llama Kearns un
"imbcil" detrs de una puerta cerrada despus de no poder
conseguir que estuviera de acuerdo con la oferta de $ 1 milln.
Pero no pareca haber ninguna animosidad extrema hacia los

toward one another.

Even though some unethical decisions and behaviors took
place, none of the characters in the movie including
Macklin Tyler, the Ford engineers, the attorneys defending
Ford in the patent trial, or the Ford negotiator were
portrayed as evil. For the most part they acted cordially
toward Kearns, did not try to impugn his integrity, and
were never heavy handed. But they definitely acted in the
best interest of Ford and themselves.
The first ethical dilemma occurred during the first meeting
with Bob Kearns and Macklin Tyler. Before their meeting
Tyler and the engineers discussed Kearnss plans to
manufacture the wiper units himself and that Ford would
probably not let that happen. Then when they first met,
Tyler said to Kearns as they shook hands that he had won
the wiper wars and asked what he planned to do. After
Kearns stated that he wanted to manufacture the wipers,
Tyler asked how much per unit. Tyler went on to say that
Ford likes staying very close to their suppliers and that
any new automobile feature had to be approved by the
Feds to meet safety standards (Pervick confirmed that
during the meeting which provided legitimacy to the claim
for Kearns). After giving a unit to Ford, Pervick met with
Kearns at a restaurant and told him that Ford wanted out.
The ethical dilemma here is that Tyler had totally misled
Kearns regarding his intentions during the negotiations
and now was trying to squeeze him out, ultimately stealing
his invention.
The law firm suggested taking that initial settlement offer
because thats how justice is carried out in America, but
Kearns refused largely due to principle. Kearns felt that if
Ford could steal his invention, then it would be easier for
other inventors to have their inventions stolen. He was not
fighting Ford just for himself but for all other inventors as
well. The issue was eventually resolved in court by
Kearns, but at a very high cost to his personal life. During
the trial, Kearns asked Tyler on the stand if he had said
that he had won the wiper wars, to which Tyler said he
could not remember. He also brought up the fact that Tyler
asked him about the cost per unit implying that Tyler
understood that Kearns had something and was planning
to supply the units to Ford. Kearns also made a great
analogy with Dickenss book which was a major reason
for his victory.
The issue should have been resolved at the first meeting. If
Ford would have acted with more integrity, they could
have worked with Kearns up front to negotiate a fair deal
for both parties, and Ford may have been able to lock out
their competitors in the process. This would have saved
Ford a lot of time and money down the road. A second
chance that Ford could have resolved the issue is that in
addition to offering a settlement, they could have agreed
to write an article in the Detroit Free Press as Kearns
demanded. Kearns wanted Ford to admit to stealing his
invention but maybe instead of admitting to stealing, they
could have acknowledged Kearns as the inventor and give
him all kinds of praise. Unfortunately, I think Ford thought
this would create a bad precedent and cause Ford to lose
their leverage against other independent inventors.
A second ethical dilemma developed as Pervick became a
middle man between Kearns and Ford. Pervick fully
supported Kearns and acted in his friends best interest up
to the point of their first meeting with Tyler, and then
Pervick let Tyler start calling the shots. Pervick went on to
slow Kearns down in his attempt to go after Ford because
Pervick had such a vested interest in preserving his
business relationship with the auto makers. It would not
have been good for business if Pervick Automotive started
suing their customers for patent infringement. Pervick was
dragging his feet and was not responsive to Kearnss calls
during this time.
When Kearns finally retained a law firm and was serious
about suing Ford, Pervick asked that he sue his company,
Pervick Automotive, as well. This gave Pervick a chance
to respond in a letter that they had acted in accordance to
the law in all of their activities. They offered to transfer
claim of the patents they held over to Kearns in exchange
to not be involved in future litigation and, more
importantly, to not have to testify against their customers.
I thought this was a great way for Pervick to remove
himself and his company from what was becoming a
messy situation, and isolated his business relationships
with the automakers and his friendship with Kearns.
A third ethical dilemma occurred when Kearns needed
proof that Ford had stolen his invention. To get it, he
needed a wiper assembly from one of Fords cars. Kearns
followed a car on a rainy day back to the owners home.
Later that evening, Kearns opened the hood of the car and
stole the assembly. The owner caught Kearns in the act,
but he was unable to identify Kearns and he got away with
the unit.

dems.
A pesar de que algunas decisiones poco ticas y comportamientos
tuvieron lugar, ninguno de los personajes de la pelcula,
incluyendo Macklin Tyler, los ingenieros de Ford, los abogados
defensores de Ford en el juicio de patentes, o el negociador Ford
se presenta como el mal. En su mayor parte actuaron
cordialmente hacia Kearns, no tratar de impugnar su integridad, y
nunca eran mano dura. Pero sin duda actuaron en el mejor inters
de Ford y de ellos mismos.
El primer dilema tico se produjo durante la primera reunin con
Bob Kearns y Macklin Tyler. Antes de su reunin Tyler y los
ingenieros discuten planes de Kearns para la fabricacin de las
unidades de limpiaparabrisas a s mismo y que Ford
probablemente no dejar que eso suceda. Luego, cuando se
conocieron, Tyler dijo Kearns mientras se estrechaban las manos
que haba "ganado las guerras de limpiaparabrisas" y le pregunt
lo que pensaba hacer. Despus de Kearns indic que quera
fabricar los limpiaparabrisas, Tyler le pregunt cunto por unidad.
Tyler lleg a decir que Ford le gusta quedarse muy cerca de sus
proveedores y que cualquier nueva caracterstica del automvil
tuvo que ser aprobado por los federales para cumplir con los
estndares de seguridad (Pervick confirm que durante la reunin
que proporcion legitimidad a la reclamacin de Kearns).
Despus de dar una unidad a Ford, Pervick reuni con Kearns en
un restaurante y le dijo que Ford quera salir. El dilema tico es
que Tyler haba engaado totalmente Kearns respecto a sus
intenciones durante las negociaciones y ahora estaba tratando de
exprimir, en ltima instancia, el robo de su invencin.
El bufete de abogados sugiri tomar esa oferta inicial de solucin
porque "as es como se lleva a cabo la justicia en Estados
Unidos", pero se neg Kearns debe en gran medida a los
principios. Kearns senta que si Ford podra robar su invento,
entonces sera ms fcil para otros inventores tienen sus
invenciones robados. l no estaba luchando Ford slo para l sino
para todos los dems inventores tambin. El problema se resolvi
finalmente en los tribunales por Kearns, pero a un costo muy alto
para su vida personal. Durante el juicio, Kearns pregunt Tyler en
el stand si hubiera dicho que haba "ganado las guerras de
limpiaparabrisas", a la que Tyler dijo que no poda recordar.
Tambin trajo a colacin el hecho de que Tyler le pregunt sobre
el costo por unidad de lo que implica que Tyler entendido que
Kearns tena algo y tena la intencin de suministrar las unidades
de Ford. Kearns tambin hizo una gran analoga con el libro de
Dickens, que era una de las principales razones para su victoria.
La cuestin debera haber sido resuelto en la primera reunin. Si
Ford hubiera actuado con ms integridad, que podran haber
trabajado con Kearns por adelantado para negociar un acuerdo
justo para ambas partes, y Ford puede haber sido capaz de
bloquear a sus competidores en el proceso. Esto habra ahorrado
Ford un montn de tiempo y dinero en el camino. Una segunda
oportunidad que Ford podra haber resuelto el problema es que
adems de ofrecer un acuerdo, podran haber accedido a escribir
un artculo en el diario Detroit Free Press como Kearns exigi.
Kearns quera Ford admitir a robar su invento, pero tal vez en
lugar de admitir a robar, que podra haber reconocido Kearns
como el inventor y darle todo tipo de elogios. Por desgracia, creo
que Ford pens que esto creara un mal precedente y causar Ford
perdiera su ventaja frente a otros inventores independientes.
Un segundo dilema tico desarrollado como Pervick convirti en
un intermediario entre Kearns y Ford. Pervick totalmente
compatible Kearns y actu en el mejor inters de hasta de su
amigo hasta el punto de su primer encuentro con Tyler, y luego
dejar que Pervick Tyler empieza a llamar a los disparos. Pervick
pas a frenar Kearns en su intento de ir detrs de Ford porque
Pervick tena un inters personal en tales preservar su relacin de
negocios con los fabricantes de automviles. No hubiera sido
bueno para el negocio si Pervick Automotive comenz
demandando a sus clientes por violacin de patentes. Pervick
estaba arrastrando sus pies y no responda a las llamadas de
Kearns durante este tiempo.
Cuando Kearns finalmente retuvo un bufete de abogados y era
serio acerca de demandar a Ford, Pervick pidi que demandar a
su compaa, Pervick Automotive, tambin. Esto dio Pervick la
oportunidad de responder en una carta que haban actuado de
conformidad con la ley en todas sus actividades. Se ofrecieron a
transferir reclamo de las patentes que tenan a Kearns a cambio de
no participar en futuros litigios y, ms importante, para no tener
que testificar en contra de sus clientes. Pens que esto era una
gran manera para Pervick para eliminar a s mismo y su compaa
de lo que se estaba convirtiendo en una situacin complicada, y
aisladas de sus relaciones comerciales con los fabricantes de
automviles y su amistad con Kearns.
Un tercer dilema tico se produjo cuando Kearns necesitaba una
prueba de que Ford haba robado su invencin. Para conseguirlo,
se necesita un conjunto d limpiador de uno de los coches de Ford.
Kearns sigui un coche en un da lluvioso de vuelta a la casa del
dueo. Ms tarde esa noche, Kearns abri el cap del coche y se
rob la asamblea. El propietario llam Kearns en el acto, pero no
pudo identificar Kearns y se sali con la unidad.

Stealing the wiper assembly was obviously unethical, but I

noticed watching the movie it was very easy to excuse
Kearns for what he was going. One could argue that this
unethical act was justified in order for Kearns to seek
justice against Fords greater wrongful doing. The nature
of the two thefts was different, but fundamentally they are
the same, and something was stolen that belonged to
someone else. This issue was never resolved. The scene
established how Kearns proved theft of his invention and
the morality of it was very much left to the perception of
the viewer. It did not come up again in the movie.
Its hard to say what the ramifications would have been if
Kearns got caught. Would this have discredited him in
pursuing his larger case against Ford? There could have
been other ways of obtaining the assembly if Kearns was
creative. Maybe he could have bought the assembly from
a dealership, or had a friend help him by allowing Kearns
to inspect his car with the assembly. Maybe even Pervick
could have helped him out someway that would be
transparent to Ford.
I learned a couple things from this exercise. First, I always
pick up on missed details when I watch a movie the
second time. I also learned how my perceptions of the
characters and organizations are influenced by the way the
movie portrays them.
An important lesson is how critical it is to have good
negotiating skills. Kearns should not have given up his
design to Ford unless he had a written contract detailing
out the blueprint of the partnership. If Ford had no
intention of letting Kearns manufacture the assembly, that
fact would have come out and other provisions like a
royalty arrangement could have been agreed upon. Once
Kearns let the cat out of the bag and without a formal
agreement there was no turning back. Also related to this
point; one should be careful not to let a friends
involvement or other emotional attachments negatively
influence doing what is prudent.

Robar el conjunto limpiador era obviamente inmoral, pero me di

cuenta de ver la pelcula que era muy fcil para excusar Kearns
para lo que iba. Se podra argumentar que este acto no tico se
justifica con el fin de Kearns a buscar justicia contra el hacer
mayor ilcito de Ford. La naturaleza de los dos robos era
diferente, pero fundamentalmente son los mismos, y algo fue
robado que perteneca a otra persona. Este problema nunca fue
resuelto. La escena establecido cmo Kearns demostr robo de su
invencin y la moralidad de la que fue en gran medida deja a la
percepcin del espectador. No vino de nuevo en la pelcula.
Es difcil decir cules son las ramificaciones habran sido si
Kearns qued atrapado. Sera esto lo han desacreditado en la
bsqueda de su caso ms grande contra Ford? Podra haber
habido otras formas de obtener la asamblea si Kearns era creativo.
Tal vez podra haber comprado el montaje de un concesionario, o
haba un amigo le ayudar al permitir Kearns a inspeccionar su
coche con el montaje. Tal vez incluso Pervick podra haberle
ayudado de alguna manera que sea transparente para Ford.
He aprendido un par de cosas de este ejercicio. En primer lugar,
siempre recojo de datos perdidas cuando veo una pelcula por
segunda vez. Tambin aprend cmo mis percepciones de los
personajes y las organizaciones se ven influidos por la forma en la
pelcula los retrata.
Una leccin importante es lo importante que es tener buenas
habilidades de negociacin. Kearns no debera haber renunciado a
su diseo de Ford a menos que tuviera un contrato por escrito
detallando el plan de la asociacin. Si Ford no tena ninguna
intencin de dejar que Kearns fabricar el montaje, este hecho
habra salido y otras disposiciones como un arreglo realeza podra
haber sido acordado. Una vez Kearns dejar que el gato fuera de la
bolsa y sin un acuerdo formal que no haba vuelta atrs. Tambin
en relacin con este punto; uno debe tener cuidado de no dejar
que la participacin u otros vnculos emocionales de un amigo
influyen negativamente en hacer lo que es prudente.