Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Denies Smucker's PB&J Patent

Posted by Zonk on from the line-in-the-sand dept.

lbmouse writes "The AP is reporting that on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected an effort by the Jelly & Jam maker to patent its process for making pocket peanut butter and jelly sandwiches." While the company was only trying to patent the "crimping process" used to create a specific type of mass market sandwich, they had also "...asked Albie's Foods of Gaylord, Mich., to stop producing ready-made PB&J sandwiches for a school district".

6 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Jesus! by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    asked Albie's Foods of Gaylord, Mich., to stop producing ready-made PB&J sandwiches for a school district

    I am ready to join the protesters who want to destroy corporate america. The ones who go to G7 meetings and economic forums and fight the nasty police. If some asshole wants to deprive me of the right to a PB&J sandwich because they have a patent, motherfuck them. The corporations have too much power. Too many lobbyists. And the laws are getting rediculous.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Jesus! by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually this case was an example of the system working the way it's supposed to.

      If the system was working the way it was supposed to, this patent & 90% of the others would be laughed out of the Patent Office front door.

      The fact that the _backup_ system (the U.S. Court of Appeals) managed to work in THIS ONE CASE, hardly means that the system is working the way it's supposed to.

  2. PB&J vs. Technology by A+Boy+and+His+Blob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see what the big interest with this case is. I think the only reason it is getting as much publicity as it is, is because the general public actually understands the patent. The prior art is clear: ravioli, pierogies, pirags, etc.

    There are software patents being passed that are 100 times more ridiculous than this, yet you don't hear much about it outside of Slashdot or some short blurb in the tech section of the NYT.

    Most of these software patents are just as absurd as patenting a method of making a PB&J sandwich, often worse. A "System and method for creating, processing and managing educational content within and between schools," I mean come on, or a "method and system for processing input from a command line interface."

    I wish the general public would realize the ramifications of software patents like these. It is essentially re-patenting the wheel.

  3. ob old commercial by daeley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With a name like Smucker's, it has to be, uh, patent pending.

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    1. Re:ob old commercial by John+Seminal · · Score: 5, Insightful
      With a name like Smucker's, it has to be, uh, patent pending.

      ROFL. If I had mod points, I would mod that insightful. LOL.

      Seriously, we need to do something about patent law. It is getting to be a joke. I remember when anyone could work on their car. I bet in 5-10 years there will be systems that GM and Ford and Toyota will patent so only they can fix it, and charge much more money. People joke about patents to blow jobs. Wait til you get a sunshine job, and the bill.

      When did patent law become a way to make a monopoly?

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  4. Re:dot dot dot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    what do peanut butter and jelly sandwiches have to do with my rights online?

    The same thing that canaries have to do with coal mines.