tony
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by tony on Nov 15, 2020 19:43:31 GMT -6
The Prof hinted at a possible connection between Robert Linkletter and the Tylenol incident. Beyond the curiousness of Linkletter's date of death, the date on which his container cap patent was filed (11 August, 1969) is also interesting.
If there's any validity (not saying there necessarily is) to Linkletter's purported connection to Zodiac and Cielo Drive events around the same time, he must've been a particularly busy fellow. Of course, the application can be fairly hands off if it's being drafted by a patent attorney, and it would've been mailed out well before the filing date.
There's also an earlier 1968 patent filed on 14 November, 1966 (but do we need another pointless CJB tie-in?). Not sure if the 1971 patent is a continuation in part on this one or not (a common trick to bump out expiration dates).
Edit: Naturally I'm late to the party. All this has been noted here which has already been posted on these boards. |
|
tony
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by tony on Nov 15, 2020 21:59:12 GMT -6
If your confirmation bias is strong enough, the CJB confession letter (29 Nov, 1966) reframes a few phrases in the 1968 patent filed the same month.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 16, 2020 6:44:38 GMT -6
Thanks, Tony! Here's what we "know" so far that might suggest some connection:
1. The Linkletters and the Sinatras turn out to have all these links to The Blob we've been investigating, and my have even more links.
2. No one really knows the motive for the Tylenol poisonings. Everyone, partly because of Johnson & Johnson's own propaganda campaign, assumes it could have been an attempt to discredit Tylenol, or frighten people away from buying it. But what if the purpose was simply to sell tamper-proof packaging?
3. Bob Linkletter and associates had saturated the prescription-only pill industry with their patented tamper-proofing packaging. So, in order to grow, they'd need to expand said packaging business into the OTC drug market.
4. As a result of the case, the government DID mandate tamper-proof packaging for OTC medicines.
5. Post hoc; ergo, propter hoc. Maybe.
See?
|
|
tony
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by tony on Nov 16, 2020 9:34:28 GMT -6
Neither of the patents already mentioned claim a tamper-evident feature. The 1971 patent describes a locking cap that would be difficult for children to open, but it appears to be one that can be nondestructively opened and resealed like the 1968 cap.
Maybe there are other cap-related patents assigned to Linkletter I'm missing.
|
|
tony
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by tony on Nov 16, 2020 9:48:15 GMT -6
Ah, here are a few assigned to his namesake company after his death...
Filed in 1984. Seems a bit late to the game.
Here's one filed in October 1983 (a year after the Chicago poisonings) that still only describes child resistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Nov 17, 2020 12:05:08 GMT -6
Nice!!! Thanks!
That's a very good point--the difference between "child proof," and "tamper proof." What better way to make someone buy your new product, than to make your old product, which has already saturated the market, obsolete? "We have solved the child-proofing problem. But, tragically, as we have aaaaaalllll seen, we face a new problem..."
Or, maybe it's your competitor...
|
|
