Slashdot Mirror

Someone has patented crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

As seen here on Jerry Pournelle's website (when he moves this week to his archives, this will be here, but that will not be for a week or so. (sorry, but the original story is available only via pay archives at Michigan Live, unless someone finds the original news service)

Last summer, the folks at Albie's Foods here started making crust-free peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches for their customers. Just before Christmas, a executive with an Ohio food company ordered Albie's to bag 'em.

Robert V. Vickers wrote to Albie's explaining that his company, Menusaver Inc., holds the patent for crustless PBJ and plans to preserve its exclusive rights to the lunchtime staple. Now, Albie's has asked U.S. District Court in Bay City to resolve the legal jam.

Albie's, a food manufacturer and restaurant, is best known for its tasty pasties, with stores in Gaylord and Grayling. Company officials say they hope the federal sandwich case can be resolved in a jiffy.

In December 1999, the Orrville, Ohio,-based food company Menusaver obtained the patent for the "sealed crustless sandwich." The product is the invention of Len C. Kirtchman of Fergus Falls, Minn., and David Geske of Fargo, N.D., according to the patent on file with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

"The sandwich includes a lower bread portion, an upper bread portion, an upper filling and a lower filling between the lower and upper bread portions, a center filling sealed between the upper and lower fillings and a crimped edge along an outer perimeter of the bread portions for sealing the fillings therebetween," states Patent No. 6,004,596.

Creamy or crunchy? Strawberry or grape? The patent doesn't get that specific. But:

"The upper and lower fillings are preferably comprised of peanut butter and the center filling is comprised of at least jelly," the patent declares. "The center filling is prevented from radiating outwardly and into and through the bread portions from the surrounding peanut butter."

Albie's co-owner Regan Quaal, contacted by The Times, said he would prefer to smooth out the controversy privately and not spread it around in the press.

United States Patent 6,004,596 Sealed crustless sandwich Abstract A sealed crustless sandwich for providing a convenient sandwich without an outer crust which can be stored for long periods of time without a central filling from leaking outwardly. The sandwich includes a lower bread portion, an upper bread portion, an upper filling and a lower filling between the lower and upper bread portions, a center filling sealed between the upper and lower fillings, and a crimped edge along an outer perimeter of the bread portions for sealing the fillings therebetween. The upper and lower fillings are preferably comprised of peanut butter and the center filling is comprised of at least jelly. The center filling is prevented from radiating outwardly into and through the bread portions from the surrounding peanut butter.

Inventors: Kretchman; Len C. (Fergus Falls, MN); Geske; David (Fargo, ND) Assignee: Menusaver, Inc. (Orrville, OH) Filed: December 8, 1997

U.S. Patent Documents 3083651 3690898 3767823 3769035 3862344 4382768 5853778

Other References "50 Great Sandwiches", Carole Handslip, pp. 81-84,86,95, 1994.

No, I meant Nick Diamos.

try a search for Fletcher Pratt's books

And this is supposed to indicate what? Even if Pratt wrote about the quote in one of his fictions, it's doubtful that the actual text would be found online. The only reference I could find attributing this to Napoleon was on Jerry Pournelle's page, where a fan incorrectly referred to Nick Daimos as Nick Dalius. Jerry was unable to give a definitive source for attributing the quote to Napoleon, although he insisted it was correct, and suggested it was the kind of incident favored by Fletcher Pratt. The coincidence of confusing Nick Diamos name and references to Pratt suggest that this was your source as well. Perhaps you should do a bit more research, Private Wrong-fact.

Citizen do not have to accept bad laws as being binding. The concept of jury nullification goes back over eight hundred years in English common law which is what U.S. law is based on. Where I first heard of this concept was on Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor Musings. I did a quick search of his site and come up with the following quote:

The jury system was a compromise developed in England after the Norman Conquest to curb the power of the government and particularly the Norman barons while maintaining something like law and order. Under the original jury system jurors were not selected for their lack of knowledge, but the opposite. In the US apparently to be a juror on a major case like the Simpson trial, you must either lie, or be so stupid as never to have heard about something that has occupied the media for weeks to the exclusion of anything people might want to hear. I suppose you could have recently returned from Patagonia or something.

Jurors in the Napoleonic system render verdicts on specific matters of fact; jurors in the English system, which was adopted wholesale in the US and was part of what is meant by trial by jury, render a "General Verdict": one is either guilty or not guilty, and if the jury finds "not guilty" it is inappropriate to make official inquiry into their reasoning.

From this comes "jury nullification", and it was pretty common at one time: if the jury didn't think that whatever the defendant did was a crime at all, they would find him not guilty even if they were certain he had done it. The "unwritten law" under which it was no murder to kill the man who had deflowered your daughter with no intent of marriage was one common reason for not guilty verdicts in the US. In England there were acquittals of Irish by Irish juries in treason and murder trials. One of Jesse James's gang was acquitted of train robbery, probably on the grounds that the railroad had illegally (at least in the eyes of local jurors) seized the family farm for right of way. Utah juries regularly acquitted men of bigamy, and may still do so for all I know.

During the Depression, juries regularly acquitted farmers of crimes associated with defying court orders of eviction. Iowa made it illegal (inciting to riot) to lead a parade carrying a red flag, and although at least four people were tried for this crime, none were ever convicted; I don't know the details, but it's pretty clear what was going on. (Those were the days when if the sheriff held an auction on farm land for back taxes, the only bidder would be the owner; anyone else trying to bid was given to understand that he would not survive the trip home.)

Jury nullification may be abused, but it was certainly accepted by the Framers of the Constitution. But then the Second Amendment had nothing whatever to do with hunting and sporting: it was intended to insure that the populace would be as well armed as the government, and specifically applied to muskets and bayonets (useless for hunting) and even cannon: many of the cannon that now stand on courthouse lawns were owned by local private citizens and served by local militia. When the wording of the Amendment was debated it was made clear that "the great thing is that every man be armed", and there wasn't any question about what armed meant: it meant being able to turn out at a minute's notice. As the British found out at Concord, Lexington, and more significantly, Bunker Hill. (As an aside, Bunker Hill may have been the decisive battle of the Revolution: Howe "won" but he lost so many men and particularly officers in taking that position that he never again dared close; which is why Washington escaped from Harlem to cross the Delaware and win his Christmas Surprise. Howe never dared pursue closely.)

Anyway, long enough: it was always considered the right of free Englishmen (which is what the Continental Congress was fighting for in the Revolution) to have a trial by a jury of one's peers, and that jury was entitled to render a general verdict.

We seem to be losing that, along with private ownership of military weapons. Perhaps it is as well: I am not at all sure I want the people down the street, the ones with the rowdy teenagers, to have a closet full of cluster bombs and Stinger missiles. But I do think the way to amend the Constitution is spelled out in the document, and allowing the courts to do it is a transfer of power I am not prepared to approve.

"Nullification" was never an announced doctrine, and "unwritten law" comes closer to defining the practice.

This blockquote is from one item on Jerry Pournelle's website regarding Jury Nullificaiton".

The DMCA is a law passed by Norman barons.

For a more cogent history of jury nullification see here. Or simply enter "jury nullificaiton" into your favorite search engine.

I think, therefore, ken_i_m

Citizen do not have to accept bad laws as being binding. The concept of jury nullification goes back over eight hundred years in English common law which is what U.S. law is based on. Where I first heard of this concept was on Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor Musings. I did a quick search of his site and come up with the following quote:

The jury system was a compromise developed in England after the Norman Conquest to curb the power of the government and particularly the Norman barons while maintaining something like law and order. Under the original jury system jurors were not selected for their lack of knowledge, but the opposite. In the US apparently to be a juror on a major case like the Simpson trial, you must either lie, or be so stupid as never to have heard about something that has occupied the media for weeks to the exclusion of anything people might want to hear. I suppose you could have recently returned from Patagonia or something.

Jurors in the Napoleonic system render verdicts on specific matters of fact; jurors in the English system, which was adopted wholesale in the US and was part of what is meant by trial by jury, render a "General Verdict": one is either guilty or not guilty, and if the jury finds "not guilty" it is inappropriate to make official inquiry into their reasoning.

From this comes "jury nullification", and it was pretty common at one time: if the jury didn't think that whatever the defendant did was a crime at all, they would find him not guilty even if they were certain he had done it. The "unwritten law" under which it was no murder to kill the man who had deflowered your daughter with no intent of marriage was one common reason for not guilty verdicts in the US. In England there were acquittals of Irish by Irish juries in treason and murder trials. One of Jesse James's gang was acquitted of train robbery, probably on the grounds that the railroad had illegally (at least in the eyes of local jurors) seized the family farm for right of way. Utah juries regularly acquitted men of bigamy, and may still do so for all I know.

During the Depression, juries regularly acquitted farmers of crimes associated with defying court orders of eviction. Iowa made it illegal (inciting to riot) to lead a parade carrying a red flag, and although at least four people were tried for this crime, none were ever convicted; I don't know the details, but it's pretty clear what was going on. (Those were the days when if the sheriff held an auction on farm land for back taxes, the only bidder would be the owner; anyone else trying to bid was given to understand that he would not survive the trip home.)

Jury nullification may be abused, but it was certainly accepted by the Framers of the Constitution. But then the Second Amendment had nothing whatever to do with hunting and sporting: it was intended to insure that the populace would be as well armed as the government, and specifically applied to muskets and bayonets (useless for hunting) and even cannon: many of the cannon that now stand on courthouse lawns were owned by local private citizens and served by local militia. When the wording of the Amendment was debated it was made clear that "the great thing is that every man be armed", and there wasn't any question about what armed meant: it meant being able to turn out at a minute's notice. As the British found out at Concord, Lexington, and more significantly, Bunker Hill. (As an aside, Bunker Hill may have been the decisive battle of the Revolution: Howe "won" but he lost so many men and particularly officers in taking that position that he never again dared close; which is why Washington escaped from Harlem to cross the Delaware and win his Christmas Surprise. Howe never dared pursue closely.)

Anyway, long enough: it was always considered the right of free Englishmen (which is what the Continental Congress was fighting for in the Revolution) to have a trial by a jury of one's peers, and that jury was entitled to render a general verdict.

We seem to be losing that, along with private ownership of military weapons. Perhaps it is as well: I am not at all sure I want the people down the street, the ones with the rowdy teenagers, to have a closet full of cluster bombs and Stinger missiles. But I do think the way to amend the Constitution is spelled out in the document, and allowing the courts to do it is a transfer of power I am not prepared to approve.

"Nullification" was never an announced doctrine, and "unwritten law" comes closer to defining the practice.

This blockquote is from one item on Jerry Pournelle's website regarding Jury Nullificaiton".

The DMCA is a law passed by Norman barons.

For a more cogent history of jury nullification see here. Or simply enter "jury nullificaiton" into your favorite search engine.

I think, therefore, ken_i_m

Citizen do not have to accept bad laws as being binding. The concept of jury nullification goes back over eight hundred years in English common law which is what U.S. law is based on. Where I first heard of this concept was on Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor Musings. I did a quick search of his site and come up with the following quote:

The jury system was a compromise developed in England after the Norman Conquest to curb the power of the government and particularly the Norman barons while maintaining something like law and order. Under the original jury system jurors were not selected for their lack of knowledge, but the opposite. In the US apparently to be a juror on a major case like the Simpson trial, you must either lie, or be so stupid as never to have heard about something that has occupied the media for weeks to the exclusion of anything people might want to hear. I suppose you could have recently returned from Patagonia or something.

Jurors in the Napoleonic system render verdicts on specific matters of fact; jurors in the English system, which was adopted wholesale in the US and was part of what is meant by trial by jury, render a "General Verdict": one is either guilty or not guilty, and if the jury finds "not guilty" it is inappropriate to make official inquiry into their reasoning.

From this comes "jury nullification", and it was pretty common at one time: if the jury didn't think that whatever the defendant did was a crime at all, they would find him not guilty even if they were certain he had done it. The "unwritten law" under which it was no murder to kill the man who had deflowered your daughter with no intent of marriage was one common reason for not guilty verdicts in the US. In England there were acquittals of Irish by Irish juries in treason and murder trials. One of Jesse James's gang was acquitted of train robbery, probably on the grounds that the railroad had illegally (at least in the eyes of local jurors) seized the family farm for right of way. Utah juries regularly acquitted men of bigamy, and may still do so for all I know.

During the Depression, juries regularly acquitted farmers of crimes associated with defying court orders of eviction. Iowa made it illegal (inciting to riot) to lead a parade carrying a red flag, and although at least four people were tried for this crime, none were ever convicted; I don't know the details, but it's pretty clear what was going on. (Those were the days when if the sheriff held an auction on farm land for back taxes, the only bidder would be the owner; anyone else trying to bid was given to understand that he would not survive the trip home.)

Jury nullification may be abused, but it was certainly accepted by the Framers of the Constitution. But then the Second Amendment had nothing whatever to do with hunting and sporting: it was intended to insure that the populace would be as well armed as the government, and specifically applied to muskets and bayonets (useless for hunting) and even cannon: many of the cannon that now stand on courthouse lawns were owned by local private citizens and served by local militia. When the wording of the Amendment was debated it was made clear that "the great thing is that every man be armed", and there wasn't any question about what armed meant: it meant being able to turn out at a minute's notice. As the British found out at Concord, Lexington, and more significantly, Bunker Hill. (As an aside, Bunker Hill may have been the decisive battle of the Revolution: Howe "won" but he lost so many men and particularly officers in taking that position that he never again dared close; which is why Washington escaped from Harlem to cross the Delaware and win his Christmas Surprise. Howe never dared pursue closely.)

Anyway, long enough: it was always considered the right of free Englishmen (which is what the Continental Congress was fighting for in the Revolution) to have a trial by a jury of one's peers, and that jury was entitled to render a general verdict.

We seem to be losing that, along with private ownership of military weapons. Perhaps it is as well: I am not at all sure I want the people down the street, the ones with the rowdy teenagers, to have a closet full of cluster bombs and Stinger missiles. But I do think the way to amend the Constitution is spelled out in the document, and allowing the courts to do it is a transfer of power I am not prepared to approve.

"Nullification" was never an announced doctrine, and "unwritten law" comes closer to defining the practice.

This blockquote is from one item on Jerry Pournelle's website regarding Jury Nullificaiton".

The DMCA is a law passed by Norman barons.

For a more cogent history of jury nullification see here. Or simply enter "jury nullificaiton" into your favorite search engine.

I think, therefore, ken_i_m

I found this quote on Jerry Pournelle's site (www.jerrypournelle.com): In 1979 I said "By the year 2000, anyone in Western Civilization will be able to get the answer to any question that has an answer."

Regardless of the views expressed in the interview, knowledge wants to be accessible to anyone, not just people in Washington, D.C. Just yesterday, I needed help with Javascript. Altavista quickly found several comprehensive references - entire books online.

I think the Library of Congress will soon realize the revolution has passed them by. Given the pace of technology, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" has taken on more significance than ever.

Jerry Pornelle has a letter from Aureate Media about this.

Down in the second letter, the company responsible Aureate Mediab writes back.

I found a copy of it here; I don't know if there's an "official" site for it or not.

Oh, uh, dude.

>Microsoft was smart enough to realize that people were reluctant
> to change from DOS to OS/2 even though it was better. They also
>realized that people wanted the GUI stuff, but didn't care about
>the other advanced stuff of OS/2 (mostly because it also meant increased
>hardware requirements). So what did they do?
>Get rid of OS/2 to IBM, and develop Windows. 1.0 [...]
IBM shot OS/2 in the foot by insisting that it support the 286. That hurt the OS and greatly delayed it's launch.

As far as IBM "getting rid" of IBM and OS/2 --
Somewhere on an old page at Jerry Pournelle's sprawling website at www.jerrypournelle.com is an account of Bill Gate's public embarrasment at Microsoft's big Media Event for the roll-out of Microsoft/IBM's spiffy new operating system -- OS/2.
The featured speaker for the evening was from IBM, but when came time for the main event, he gave short-shrift to his "speach", and just... walked out. Pournelle was at the table with Gates & saw his shock. From then on, Microsoft's focus was on Windows. IBM taught Microsoft a lot about business relationships...
As far as IBM and OS/2 goes, I doubt that IBM (as a corporation) really cared all that much about selling OS/2 into the home or very small business market. They wanted to sell bigger iron and OS/2 server to corporations who would buy hundreds or thousands of OS/2 desktop licenses.
Selling/marketing to individuals? IBM never has understood the turf...

For those of you who don't want to go mucking around in that guy's website trying to find the article that mentions /., go here; it's near the bottom of the page. Not that much about it, just that he doesn't give much credibility to /. posters because they use words like "Windoze," and that he doesn't think Refund Day is all that big because most of the people stating they're going to participate in it have probably booted their computers to Win95/98 at least once.

-mike kania

For I all I may disagree with the Pournelle's politics, and for all that I'm not so keen on his fiction, I'd take him any day over Jon Katz.

I think the common thread from both efforts, by the way, is that RedHat really need to take a look at their install manuals if they want to live up to the hype they're getting.