# Scientist gets £2m decades after he invented diabetes test



## Andy HB (Oct 23, 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50156965


----------



## Thebearcametoo (Oct 23, 2019)

Good for him.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 23, 2019)

_“A scientist has been awarded £2m compensation by the UK's highest court for his invention of pioneering technology to test blood sugar levels nearly 40 years ago. 

Professor Ian Shanks developed the system, used by many diabetics, while working for Unilever in the 1980s. 

The rights to his invention belonged to the company and until now he was not entitled to a share of the benefits.

Prof Shanks said he was relieved by the result, after a 13-year legal battle.

While working for a subsidiary of multinational giant Unilever in Bedfordshire in 1982, Prof Shanks developed new technology to measure the concentration of glucose in blood and other liquids.

Using plastic film and glass slides from his daughter's toy microscope kit and bulldog clips to hold it together, he built the first prototype of what is now known as the electrochemical capillary fill device (ECFD).“_​
Sounds like he’s the father of the test strip!


----------



## Docb (Oct 23, 2019)

Trouble is that I doubt he was a lone pioneer who had a brilliant inspirational moment. Innovation does not work that way.  Doubt he would have come up with it if he had not been working for (and paid by) Unilever, had their facilities at hand, and work colleagues around him.  My name is on a few patents including one that became a household name and it would not occur to me to try to claim money from its commercial success.  Providing commercially exploitable products is what I was paid to do.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 23, 2019)

There’s a lot of truth in that @Docb - I suspect that’s why it took 13 years of legal wrangling!


----------



## trophywench (Oct 23, 2019)

I'm not going to say anything about whose dosh it is, but would simply like to express my gratitude to the bloke for making the last 40 years of my life (and the rest of it) so much EASIER!


----------



## Eddy Edson (Oct 24, 2019)

Docb said:


> Trouble is that I doubt he was a lone pioneer who had a brilliant inspirational moment. Innovation does not work that way.  Doubt he would have come up with it if he had not been working for (and paid by) Unilever, had their facilities at hand, and work colleagues around him.  My name is on a few patents including one that became a household name and it would not occur to me to try to claim money from its commercial success.  Providing commercially exploitable products is what I was paid to do.



But reading the judgement, it seems that in the UK an inventor has a claim if his/her employer has derived an "outstanding" benefit from the invention, relative to the inventor's compensation. Maybe you should lawyer up!


----------



## nonethewiser (Oct 24, 2019)

trophywench said:


> I'm not going to say anything about whose dosh it is, but would simply like to express my gratitude to the bloke for making the last 40 years of my life (and the rest of it) so much EASIER!



Second that, all respect to him,


----------



## Docb (Oct 24, 2019)

Eddy Edson said:


> But reading the judgement, it seems that in the UK an inventor has a claim if his/her employer has derived an "outstanding" benefit from the invention, relative to the inventor's compensation. Maybe you should lawyer up!



Nah.  Good on him for having the chutzpah to try it on and finding a lawyer who would take it.  Got better things to do than spend time making lawyers rich.  Wonder if the money included his costs - these settlements usually do with each side bearing their own.  If so much of the £2m will have disappeared into the lawyers pockets.

My guess is that Unilever gave up and settled not because they thought he had a case but all in all it would cost them less in the long run.  The company I worked for would have been far more aggressive and sued me back for the money I spent on all the crap I came up with which got nowhere.



nonethewiser said:


> Second that, all respect to him,



My respect is more to the organisation which took the idea and turned it into a usable product.  That is far harder and often requires more innovation than getting the idea in the first place.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Oct 24, 2019)

Docb said:


> My guess is that Unilever gave up and settled not because they thought he had a case but all in all it would cost them less in the long run.



FWIW, they didn't settle - it got fought through a few rounds of litigation until the final judgement went against them.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 24, 2019)

Eddy Edson said:


> FWIW, they didn't settle - it got fought through a few rounds of litigation until the final judgement went against them.



In which case I suspect they had to bear all the legal costs?


----------



## Eddy Edson (Oct 24, 2019)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> In which case I suspect they had to bear all the legal costs?



Judgement doesn't say anything about it - so dunno!


----------



## Robin (Oct 24, 2019)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> In which case I suspect they had to bear all the legal costs?


The BBC article quotes him as saying that most of his compensation will go in paying his legal costs, but he just did it for the principle of the thing.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 24, 2019)

Robin said:


> The BBC article quotes him as saying that most of his compensation will go in paying his legal costs, but he just did it for the principle of the thing.



Ah OK - @Docb had it right then. Still I suspect the lawyers will enjoy all that extra cash.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Oct 24, 2019)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Ah OK - @Docb had it right then. Still I suspect the lawyers will enjoy all that extra cash.


----------



## Docb (Oct 24, 2019)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Ah OK - @Docb had it right then. Still I suspect the lawyers will enjoy all that extra cash.



Know a QC quite well and one of his standard pieces of advice is never to go to court on a point of principle.  All it will do is make the litigant poorer and the lawyers richer, even if they win. He also knows then that anybody who carries on is somebody who is not amenable to taking informed advice.

I see it finished up in the supreme court which overturned decisions of lower courts.  Should have read the whole article.  That would have been a very expensive legal action and little wonder that there was not much money left and it took a toll on his health.  Pity the headline does not reflect that.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 24, 2019)

Eddy Edson said:


> View attachment 12480


----------



## nonethewiser (Oct 25, 2019)

Docb said:


> My respect is more to the organisation which took the idea and turned it into a usable product. That is far harder and often requires more innovation than getting the idea in the first place.



Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion, mighty oaks from little acorns grow, the Prof planted the seed which has revolutionised peoples lives, how much input he had throughout the development is anyone's guess, its only right his achievement has been justly recognised.



Docb said:


> Know a QC quite well and one of his standard pieces of advice is never to go to court on a point of principle. All it will do is make the litigant poorer and the lawyers richer, even if they win. He also knows then that anybody who carries on is somebody who is not amenable to taking informed advice.



What nonsense, seriously. 

Got a settlement out of court 4 years ago, it was a small amount but it was more point of principle, other side wouldn't admit guilt nor settle the sum owed, got solicitor involved and along way got passed to barrister.  Legal fees were close to 30k on my side which was payable by other party's insurance, goodness knows how much their costs were, but when you believe you have been wronged and at a financial loss its important to stand your ground, even if that means lining the pockets of legal profession, such is life and cases like mine would never be won without their guidance.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 25, 2019)

Good to hear that your case was successful @nonethewiser - and yes, sometimes it is important to stand up against ‘the odds’. 

I suspect DocB’s QC was referring more to circumstances where that noble principle becomes somewhat skewed and individuals begin to go against advice of the professionals they are consulting. 

There was a case in the news locally where someone felt a traffic fine issued did not apply on a technicality, refused to pay on principle and went to court, representing themselves against advice given to them. After extensive proceedings their opinion of the non-applicability of the original fine was not upheld and they had to pay not only the original fine but also £30,000 of legal expenses.


----------



## Docb (Oct 25, 2019)

Sorry, not nonsense at all nonthewiser.  You were, it seems, claiming against an insurance company.  That is an entirely different matter.  Had there not been an insurance company to go for you would have got the advice I suggested and probably finished up with costs like the person in everydupsanddowns example even if you had "won".  Might not be fair but that is the reality.

Also, as somebody who worked in product innovation and R&D I can assure you that the idea of some lone genius coming up with an idea that revolutionises the world is the stuff of Hollywood fiction.  I think it was Issac Newton who said something like.... I can see further only because I am standing on the shoulders of others.


----------



## nonethewiser (Oct 25, 2019)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Good to hear that your case was successful @nonethewiser - and yes, sometimes it is important to stand up against ‘the odds’.



Thanks Mike, it was a long road but got there in end, took nearly 2 1/2 years in total, all worth it though.



everydayupsanddowns said:


> I suspect DocB’s QC was referring more to circumstances where that noble principle becomes somewhat skewed and individuals begin to go against advice of the professionals they are consulting.



Here's the thing, solicitor used was the 4th one who I consultant, previous 3 thought it best I didn't pursue matters as there might be a risk of losing, thankfully ignored them and found one who believed in my rights and the evidence presented, had I not stuck to my principles I would still be out of pocket and chomping at the bit.



Docb said:


> Sorry, not nonsense at all nonthewiser. You were, it seems, claiming against an insurance company. That is an entirely different matter. Had there not been an insurance company to go for you would have got the advice I suggested and probably finished up with costs like the person in everydupsanddowns example even if you had "won". Might not be fair but that is the reality.



Initially no insurance company were involved, other party said they had no insurance policy and didn't provide details to myself or solicitor for the first year, I was suing them not any insurance company and it was only when their back was against the wall that insurance details were provided.

Nearly all companies and individuals have insurance cover, whether its public liability or personal insurance so most compensation cases are settled by insurers, that is why we take out policies, but point being, had I taken the advice of your QC friend then I would never have had a settlement and other party would be let off scot free.  Lets face it my friend, anyone who pursues a case to court does so as matter of principle, if there wasn't they'd be no motivation to do so.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Oct 25, 2019)

As in most things, there's no general rule and the devil is in the details. It depends on the nature of the case, the facts amd the evidence. It's dumb to say that it never makes sense to pursue a case on principle; the motivation is irrelevant to outcome probabilities. And one lawyer will see an arguable case where another doesn't. So it would also be dumb to say you should always take the first opinion given. 

Generally, of you're going to get into this, you should try to get familiar enough with the relevant law to understand the issues and the advice you're being given, to the extent that's possible.

And actually there are some general operational rules: When lawyers give you advice, press them to give you (a) an estimate for the probability of whatever outcome they're talking about and (b) what the financial/downside/upside implications of the outcome would be. They hate doing it, but it's an important part of managing them. Also, always make sure you get regular billing updates from your lawyers & check them; agree on a fee cap which they can't exceed without yr permission; try to make sure a senior is across all the details & they haven't just palmed everything off on juniors.

I've had quite a bit of experience dealing with lawyers in commercial settings ...


----------



## Docb (Oct 25, 2019)

A good analysis Eddy.  Always got to be wary when generalising from the particular.


----------

