Slashdot Mirror
Court Denies Smucker's PB&J Patent
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".
There's only one way to celebrate...You know it..
IT'S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
For those that don't RTFA, Smucker actually allready had a patent from 1995, but this rejection "involved two additional patents that Smucker was seeking to expand its original patent by protecting its method." I.e. they still have the original patent for their method of making a P&J sandwich, but "the company's original patent is being re-examined by the patent office."
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
There goes my chances of patenting the BLT.
There goes my patent on grilled cheese.
Food crumbs in the keyboard.
In a post 9/11 world, police arrest peanut butter and jelly.
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."
I once saw a show on the television that said the US army already crimps PB&J sandwiches as a type of combat ration... they last for a while, apparently!
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
What right would Smucker's have to ask Albie's to stop making sandwiches? If someone else is already using an idea, can it still be patented? Is the U.S. Patent system really that backwards?
I have to ask, what in the bloody hell is a "pocket" peanut butter and jam sandiwch?
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
And you'd really get into trouble if you tried to make PB&J's with $2 bills...
Digital Sailor
Once again the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has struck a blow for our rights online. We can email each other peanut butter and jelly sanwiches without fear of lawsuits.
What's for lunch?
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.
...it has to be fraud.
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.
Smuckers has a picture of them here.
Apparently they are found in the frozen foods aisle of the grocery store as the the page says, "All you do is thaw and serve."
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
somebody will patent blow jobs, then my wife will have alegal excuse.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
One of a kind way to make PB&J sandwiches. I hate to tell these asshats, I was making PB and Strawberry sandwiches for ages. When I was younger I used to cut the edge of the bread off, but today I need the extra fiber.
Maybe I should patent that I whipe my ass with the paper going upwards and not downwards. Who knows, maybe I am the only one who knows how to whipe an ass.
Patent examiners at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office disagreed, saying the crimped edges are similar to making ravioli or a pie crust.
Fuck, here comes Chef Boy-R-D and his patent lawyers. Someone tell that 90 year old woman she is no longer lawfully allowed to make her family dinner.
Smucker asked Albie's Foods of Gaylord, Mich., to stop producing ready-made PB&J sandwiches for a school district, but the food manufacturer went to a federal judge in 2001 and then the patent office to invalidate Smucker's original patent. Albie's was "caught off guard, literally, because they didn't think you could patent a peanut butter and jelly sandwich," said the company's lawyer, Kevin Heinl.
Can my girlfriend patent the blow job? She is damn good. She swirls her tounge, head down, but the eyes looking up like a puppy dog. Like "oh dear daddy, I love you". Just like that. Nobody else does it like her. I'd like to get a nickle everytime your girlfriend gives you a blow job.
The patent office received 376,810 patent applications last year. It usually takes about two-and-a-half years for a patent to be processed. About 65 percent of all patents submitted are approved, Quinn said.
There were over 200,000 patents approved last year? Sweet Jesus. I really should get around to a but whipe patent.
"Very few patents are what one would call a 'pioneer patent,' meaning that the inventor discovered something very, very new that has never been discovered before," she said. "Most patents are given to changes to existing technology."
I'll dip the toilet paper in water. That's it.
"We bought a unique idea for making an everyday item more convenient (and) made a significant investment in the idea and in developing the innovative manufacturing technology that makes Uncrustables so easy to use," the company said.
I wonder how this ruling will effect the Pop Tart corporation?
Smucker's stock price fell 30 cents on Friday to close at $49.67 on the New York Stock Exchange.
I can hear Gordon Gekko yelling "Bud FOX, Damn you!". I wish we knew how this PB&J thing really played out.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
The same thing that canaries have to do with coal mines.
This is the real news here -- that the patent office rejected a patent application.
My question is this: if they accepted swinging on a swing as worthy of a US patent, why did the USPTO decide to deny Smuckers this one?
Your mom said that when I showed her my cock.
Yes, you're right.
One major point on the patent was that, when making a PBJ, the J seeps through the bread. To solve that problem, Smuckers put PB on BOTH pieces of bread.
And patented that!
They got a patent on putting PB on both bread slices instead of just one!
And we wonder how the one-click-order got patented!
A method of making a crustless sandwich from two slices of bread with outer crusts, the method comprising: placing a first slice of bread on a platen; forming a mass of a first food spread onto the central portion of the first slice of bread in a position spaced inwardly from a marginal area where the mass is formed with an inner lower layer with an outer rim extending upwardly from the lower layer to define a closed pocket or receptacle recess in the mass; placing a second food spread in the receptacle recess; closing the receptacle recess with a layer of the first food spread generally coextensive with the mass and supported on the outer rim of the mass to encapsulate the second food spread into a center composite food layer; placing a second slice of bread over the first slice to cover the center composite food layer; cutting the bread slices in unison in a cut pattern to remove the crusts of the slices; and, pressing the two bread slices together by force through the slices against a pressure surface on the platen to crimp the slices into a crustless sandwich.
The US Court of Appeals invalidated the patent. The stupid motherfuckers at the patent office actually granted the thing.
It's starting to look like patents are drifting well past their original purpose. Overhaul the system, or ditch the suckers completely.
As long as it NOT with their version of the PB & J! Its horrible!
Patent comes in for a new type of PB&J.
Worker: Hey! I could have thought of that... hell, the wife makes one every Tuesday... DENIED.
Patent comes in for a new "technology." A Web site will have a box labeled Username and one labeled Password, and a Submit button that logs on the user to the Web sites system.
Worker: That sounds complex about computer web site things. Must be some new technology. APPROVED.
What in the hell are they doing trying to patent crimped bread?!
There are so few things about food and cooking that hasn't been done before that I'm willing to believe it has pretty much ALL been done before. This is pretty ridiculous.
On the other hand, they might be making peanutbutter and jelly sandwiches on crimped bread, I'm making jelly and peanutbutter sandwiches on TOAST! Now *that* has to be patentable because I've never heard of it before and it's nothing like a pie crust or ravioli. (Though my secret ingredient might get me into hot water with DuPont... I'm still in negotiations)
My single-click peanut butter sandwich patent has yet to be struck down.
Don't be going to Smuckers online contact form trying to sell them on new ideas to patent.
Just because two guys sold them patents to PB&Js doesn't mean they are stupid.
And especially don't try and sell them a patent on milk in a cylindrical container. I'm already negotiating that one with them now.
Rob Enderle's excellent new book: Everything I needed to know about Computer Science I learned in Marketing School
And so April 15 is Poop For Peace Day.
What? Nobody out there has mod points AND a sense of humor? 'Cause this is the funniest friggin thing I've heard in a long time.
loyalty above all, save honor
Make a PB&J..
Go to jail...
Its the law...
a patent on a PB&J with the crust? Has the Patent Office ruled on that, or is this my one chance to sue every person that eats a sandwitch with a crust?
No. Not people who eat a sandwich with a crust. But people who manufacture or consume ravioli would be in for a surprise.
How lazy are we as a society, when we can't even spend 1 minute to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Thats what scares me more then this Smuckers patent.
They got a patent on putting PB on both bread slices instead of just one!
Whoa.. That's how I've always made PBJ's. Not because of seepage, but because I LIKE PEANUT BUTTER.
I could've been rich. I could've had a big mansion in LA. I could be bangin' 2 hot chicks at the same time *right at this moment*.
Instead I try and work hard and earn money from my clients by doing a better job faster.
What a chump I am, eh?
Clinton gave it life, Bush is going ape shit and bananas with it.. this is new the IP economy the U.S. is building and it's economic survival depends on these ridiculous patents. I figure in the 10-12 years congress will reform patent laws in such a way that they last 20 years + the lifetime of the filer (with qualifiers just in case the filer dies/corporation goes bust.) Maybe they'll just knock it up to 80 years, flat out. They did it with copyright, they'll do it with patents... They have to.
You too can have a lifetime monopoly on a method for drinking milk through your nostrils!
Do it as unspecific and general as possible then sue everyone with patents to specific sandwichs.
But seriously, how retarded is the USA when you can get sued for making a PB&J sandwich?
That seems like the last straw for all the white trash in trailor parks having sex with their sisters while listening to John Cougar Mellancamp cds. (I wasn't the original troll!)
[cx]
whacking the USPTO upside the head.
Yep, cause why can't Smuckers just stock their factory with thousands of people standing in front of a chopping board using butter knives and to fish the product out of jars? That's how my mum used to make em! For one, it's a peanut butter and jelly filled pastry, not a sandwich. Obviously the current mechanisms for putting this filling into the type of pastry they use isn't adequate, so they needed new machinery, which means they needed to design and get them built. What stops the manufacturer of these machines from selling them to a competitor? What stops other manufacturers from making them if the design gets leaked? Why, patent law does.
How we know is more important than what we know.
We responded, now explain vegimite...
especially vegimite sandwiches...
However, 65% of all applications are granted, which means that only the tiniest fraction of all granted patents have any really original content.
Personally, I don't have any objection to patenting original content. I like that and I think that the patent system should actively encourage as much pioneering work as physically possible, so actively encourage progression of thought rather than over-refining and stagnating on existing work.
Significant variations on a theme, I can also see being worthy of protection. Refinement does have a place, because totally original perspectives will always miss some novel use, or some specialized customization, which can radically alter the idea without altering the foundations on which it is built.
Micro-specialization, where there really isn't anything actual new in either the concept or the application, and no real new work has been put into the implementation, but there is enough deviation overall to crudely describe it as not an exact duplicate of an existing idea - uh, the lack of duplication does not mean the presence of originality, so these I don't think have any business being patented.
Mathematical laws, results and algorithms - which exist 100% independently of the person using them and are merely discovered, not created - those are worthy of some form of protection, but not the patent system. Patents should be for creations, not discoveries. Discoveries should be placed in an independent category because they have always existed. Inventions start with a problem, which is translated into a solution for that problem. The solution never proceeds the problem for which it is the solution. Discoveries are always of things that have existed since the Big Bang and will exist until the Heat Death of the Universe, whether discovered or not and whether a problem exists to which they apply or not. They are a completely different class of solution.
The sandwich method in the article is a discovery within the realms of material science and fluid dynamics. Nothing new was made, they merely found some properties the existing system already had. I think that earns them something. What I don't believe is that it earns them exclusive rights and a fat royalty check. The property would still have been true if Smuckers never existed.
The primary difference between an invention and a discovery is that inventions are not guaranteed, even in an infinite universe and even if the decay of matter did not occur. An invention - even a derivative one - requires some creativity. As many problems have an infinitely variable solution space, there is no guarantee that even in an infinite universe, the whole solution space will ever be covered.
Discoveries, because they are intrinsic to the way things work and not a function of those who make use of them, are guaranteed to be made eventually. They are inevitable and may be made long before, or long after, any problem requiring them is ever found. Indeed, no problem requiring them need ever exist.
As I see it, geeks get most upset, because discoveries are frequently treated as inventions. It makes sense to patent some specific medical drug that has some useful combination of properties, because they are totally creative and there is nothing intrinsic about them. It does not make sense to patent gravity, swings or the wheel, because these are totally intrinsic and have no creative element.
In my opinion, this could be resolved by mandating a certain maximum on how intrinsic the solution in a patent can be. Above that point, it may merit protection, but a new system should be found for it rather than trying to overgeneralize one designed for engineered creative works.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Software patents seem to generally be for an end result and very vague method (some of which are commonly used methods, ie Amazon's 'no display flag').
Another problem with software patents is duration, 20-years is forever in the technology sector.
I have nothing against patents for true innovation. What I have contempt for is patents that stifle innovation. This is the antithesis of why the system was created, and a large part of how it works now. Without going into too much depth (plenty of discussion around this already), that is what the modern-day patent system is being used as: a weapon against competitors.
What exactly is the difference? It's hard to say and impossible to spell out in detail. Subjectively, I know that crimping the edges of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich isn't true innovation. Figuring out a way to make toasters may be innovative, depending on what that way is. If it's something stupid like "run my toaster-making machines faster," then it's not.
The thing that gets under our (the god damn geek anti-patent people's) skin is that the patent office now doesn't bother to figure out the difference. They just rubber-stamp anything you come up with and let the courts figure it out later if need be.
Of course, letting the courts figure it out is usually a prohibitively expensive and time-consuming process, but they don't care, and there are not (yet) enough people out there protesting in the streets to change anything. So companies with deep pockets continue to use and abuse the system. The end result is that survival in a competitive marketplace has little to do with how clever you are, but how much money you have backing you.
People aways did noted inventors like James Watt, Thomas Edison and Alexander Bell, they all had very large patent portfolios. Infact Henry Ford was unable to produce his model T, because it was blocked by a patent, the owner would only grant use to his "Club", and didn't like the masses having access to cars. So Ford waited it out. Bell is also interesting because in is thought by many that his application was modified and used information stolen from another application, being checked by the same examiner. Many believe the examiner was paid by Bell.
James
i'm sorry, but am i the only one who things this looks like a pizza pocket...
"what do peanut butter and jelly sandwiches have to do with my rights online?"
Who gives a flying fuck?
"Derp de derp."
I think what offends the "geeks" you're arguing with is that patentability implies that an idea has some novelty and is not obvious to anyone "skilled in the art" to which it pertains. Yet, patents are often granted that violate these principles, sometimes to an absurd extent.
patents are not about incentives, they're about outright survival in a competitive market place.
The purpose it to promote innovation, not to grant monopolies simply for the asking. The government does not owe you success. Success in a competitive marketplace comes from competing successfully.
Novel, you fucking moron:
novel, adj. -- Strikingly new, unusual, or different
Shut your hole, retard. As others have said, this is similar to how other foods are produced, including Ravioli. In simple terms I hope you can understand: this is NOT novel!
Nobody should be able to patent something unless it really is far different from everything else available. THAT is how innovation itself is rewarded. (And that is how the patent system was originally intended to work.) Otherwise, we are only awarding those who can twist a description enough that their patent is granted... it's unlikely that they are very inventive, if they feel they must weasel their way through a loophole.
You do not understand what is going on in the patent system. So please do not argue about it.
Become A Real Millionaire, in 10 seconds, on your computer! (rf=really fast) Read manual, YMMV.
rm -rf *
Somebody pass me a foie gras and salmon roe pocket sandwich, I'm hungry. Today's theme ingredient is Intellectual Property!
... and then they built the supercollider.
That's actually a good idea.
Except, peanut products cause me to um... die. Now if they could just keep that from happening, that would be awesome!
It seems like a really stupid patent, until you try those sandwiches. They are GOOD. For someone who doesn't like to spend a lot of time cooking (or in the case of the PBJ, getting the components together), and also as a guy who never got over the whole crusts thing (hate them, cut them off, always), this thing is a godsend. Laugh all you like, but try one first.
Earth to lazy-ass, come in lazy-ass.
These things taste like ass, lazy, pre-processed ass
It takes about 90 seconds to put together a real PBJ sandwich and put the remaining components back into storage and lick the knife. To avoid eating crust (what are you 2 years old?) you tear the crust off one side and start eating there until you've eaten out everything but the remaining crust, which you then throw away!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
...how dancing bananas relate to sandwiches.
Then again, I believe it refers to the actual sandwiching in the dance...or something...damn I've become a sad geek.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
"You're free to clone their product and compete with them, you just have to come up with your own process to do it."
This is a very important point. Few things are perfect the first time around. Often avoiding a patent means developing something even better. And, even if it doesn't, the party involved in developing a solution that others seem to think are critical enough to license deserves a reward. No?
"Derp de derp."
If there is anything unique about the machines they designed, they should get a patent on that. But they didn't. They got a patent on the sandwich.
The idea of "leaking" the secret about a crimped PBJ with PB on both slices of bread is absurd. It's not innovative, it's obvious, and it took just about zero investment of time and capital to come up with. Here are the exact claims from the patent:
There are two parts to this patent: (1) So the jelly soaks through the non peanut-buttered side. 90% of the population could solve that dillemma in 30 seconds by putting PB on both sides. (2) So the sandwich is loose. Crimp it just like ravioli has been crimped for over a century.
Notice that there is not a single reference to any machine that could make this sandwich. Just two dead-simple ideas that even a person of low intelligence would think of as soon as they saw the problem description.
This is not some mysterious rocket-science research that needs to be nurtured. It's just a sandwich that you could make in your kitchen in 60 seconds, except that now it's illegal.
When peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are outlawed, only outlaws will have peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
Coding Blog
So there's that argument all shot to hell. Next.
Become A Real Millionaire, in 10 seconds, on your computer! (rf=really fast) Read manual, YMMV.
rm -rf *
Well, IANAL, but ...
The Farewell Tour II
I could understand it if they had invented a machine that made the sandwiches and then patented the machince, but this is just silly.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Well, I certainly have been practising prior art all my days.
For christ's sake, making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is just too much hassle for some people? I'm sorry, but if you're having trouble mastering the recipe for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, I'm not really sure you're fit to prepare your own food.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Unless Smuckers came up with a really unique way of 'crimping the edges' to seal the sandwich, then I'd have to argue against it on the basis of prior art going back to a tool that I first saw back when I was a Boy Scout; it was two metal rods hinged together at one end with handles at the other, sort of like a nutcracker, but the arms were about two feet long. Near the hinge on each rod was a circular dished metal plate. You buttered two slices of bread, put one on one of the plates, added some filling (jam, meat, PB&J, etc), put the other slice on top, and closed the arms; this clamped the two plates together, cutting off the crust and sealing the 'sandwich' inside; you then stuck it into a fire to brown the bread, giving you a sort of pasty or fruit pie (depending on the filling. And this was back in the late '60s, so 'prior art' has been around for a while.
Yes. Sooner or later fellow Americans will get fed up with this kind of nonsense.
Imagine the day when celebrities try to patent hair styles. Geez... Unless we have more rulings like this, it's coming.
Get some.
--
The list is an absolute good. The list is life. All around its margins lies the gulf.
I can imagine some poor guy repeating that to himself after being stuck on a slowly sinking boat in the Gulf of Mexico for eight years...
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
... the problem is ENFORCEMENT.
We don't need to do anything about patent law. What we need desperately is to do something about proper enforcement of the existing rules.
Patent law forbids granting patents on inventions for which there is prior art. Yet there is a flood of patents for which there is prior art which is against existing patent law.
Patent law forbids granting patents on inventions which are obvious deductions from prior art. Yet there is a flood of patents which do not meet the criteria of non-obviousness, again against existing patent law.
Patent law also forbids granting patents on applications which are not described in enough detail to allow persons skilled in the art to carry out the invention (ie build the apparatus). Yet there is a flood of fuzzy patents which were not specified in the required detail, yet again against existing patent law.
The one primeval problem there is with the patent system today is that enforcement of existing legislation is anywhere from too lax to non-existant. That is the issue we ought to acknowledge and do something about.
The fact that we, the public, do not acknowledge this to be the root cause, that we usually talk nonsense when it comes to patent issues, that we consequently do not lobby for better enforcement, this only works into the hands of those who abuse the system, who take advantage of the lack of enforcement of patent law.
the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
That's right.
Why?
Why? Are you so special that if someone else works out how to synthesize that drug independently of you, that you should be able to stop them from taking advantage of their own research?
If their "process" is so braindead that a chimpanzee can imitate the process after viewing it once, why in the hell should they be granted a patent on it?
Too bad the so-called justification is without merit
B.S. We'd have innovation coming out of our eyeballs if big companies weren't using "intellectual property" laws to squash their competition.
If a company can't survive in a marketplace without being granted a government-enforced monopoly, then THEY DON'T DESERVE TO SURVIVE. Propping up failing companies is called corporate welfare, and prevents more economically-beneficial entities from taking their place.
I'm going to reply to this post and this post only. You don't know what you're on about. You havn't even read the patent. How can you possibily hold an opinion about how obvious this patent is? STFU.
How we know is more important than what we know.
close - if peanut butter and jellly sandwiches die (become patent encumbered), then it's time to get the fuck out of the mine (USA).
so Smuckers process of cutting and crimping is NOT novel.
Any patent examiner with half a brain should have thrown Smuckers out of the door. Sadly, it looks like they found one of the ones with only a quarter of a brain...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
So that's the trick: Make sure any prior art has already been eaten.
This patent claim is an example of why I don't think I could ever work as a cullinary researcher.
I just couldn't imagine writing a design for stuffed crust pizza, let alone a patent!
Instead I try and work hard and earn money from my clients by doing a better job faster.
By posting on Slashdot?
Non tam praeclarum est scire Latine, quam turpe nescire
-- Cicero
Only 2 chicks at the same time? What, do you have a heart condition?
The Farewell Tour II
In Soviet Russia Government Patents You!!!
Get your Unix fortune now!
"i own the patent to the "flying fuck"
Please. The only patent you own on fucking involves a form of automation.
"Derp de derp."
You are mistaken about the justification for patents.
...
The only reason for the patent system is to give incentive to inventors to publish their inventions instead of keeping them secret, thus enriching the public domain. All patents end up in the public domain. It's a BARGAIN, not an award.
Any patent attorney will confirm this. Just ask one. If you don't know any, just google for "patent bargain" or visit the CIPA website (chartered attorneys of patent agents)
http://www.cipa.org.uk/pages/advice-patents
the macintosh asterisk mailing list http://www.astm
mr Coward... I have owned Breville Sandwich toasters since 1980... goodnight.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Only a lawyer could say that reading a patent isn't that difficult.
Only a lawyer could even stay awake while reading a patent.
Only a lawyer wouldn't think that patent language is to regular English as Perl is to a regular programming language.
So fess up.
You're a lawyer, aren't you?
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
So much for my BLT sandwich patent...
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
In Australia we call them Jaffle Irons or just Toasted Sandwich Makers (yeah, real technical term). I suggest using ham and cheese as the filling though some people like tomato on it too. My Dad likes adding basil but he always was weird...
Other good options include tinned spaghetti, mince and best of all, traditional italian bolognese.
Oh for fuck sake, READ THE GOD DAMN ARTICLE.
How we know is more important than what we know.
OMG, Smuckers is patenting Porn & Blow Jobs!
Oh, was it PB&J? Never mind. I thought it was P&BJ. I thought the world of slashdot as we know it was coming to an abrupt end.
you should be able to patent a novel process
Exactly. Show me a "novel" software process that doesn't rely in some way on countless other processes. There are some, but they are in the extreme minority. Patents are for those who invent. Sorry, but repackaging something that is common knowledge and claiming that it's novel because it's "on the internet" doesn't qualify.
As a European, I'm amazed that this kind of candy bread is actually spread, pre-manufactured, at schools!
It's not like we don't know the PB&J over here in Holland but come on, a school should primarily serve a nice fresh cheese sandwich or something else without so much sugar.
Slashdot posts about a legal threat in a town called Gaylord and there isn't yet a 5 Funny modded post yet?
Shame on you all, I expected better.
I did, you abrasive schmuck.
I showed you the claims of the patent in question, and I explained exactly why the claims are bogus.
Are you saying that the claims don't cover a sandwich? Can you read and comprehend English?
No-one was talking about software genius, go back to sleep.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Oh good, name calling. Who's the 2 year old again?
It ain't name calling if it is the truth.
But, getting to the point, it's more efficent. I could spend 2 hours washing and waxing my car, or 15 min at the local car wash
If it takes you 2 hours to make a PB&J then you've got a major disability.
Tell me, oh authority of taste (licker of knives) and well of infinite knowledge (./ reader), what you find so redeeming about this 'crust'? It's the burnt part of the bread!
a) It is not burnt, if it were burnt it would be carbonized
b) It's kind of like peeling an apple. There's nothing particularly redeeming about it, just not worth the effort of avoiding - something a person so focused on efficiency would have figured out long ago.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Bah! Crustless bread is an evil scheme to get people to buy more bread, because it goes stale more quickly.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I have one of those "jaffle irons", which I inherited from my grand mother. She used to make toasted bread with it for most of her life, apparently...
Any other recipes will be gladly accepted...
How the fnck can you patent a fncking recipe? Why are they treating a recipe as an patentable invention? IT'S FOOD for fnck sake!!!
So you do something unique and it now becomes intellectual property?
*(God, I'm ready for Armageddon when ever you are)*
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Actually, I've been making P&J sandwitches for ages, only I mostly replaced the P with butter. And sometimes I replaced the J with P, or even other stuff.
When I took those sandwiches to work that butter made sure that the J (or other stuff) stayed in the middle untill my noon break, when I ate them.
Would those sandwiches be considered "prior art", or would they, as they are "so similar", be falling under the P&J -patent too ?
I think that preserves are like jam, but even chunkier.
Preserves might not include pectin, but don't quote me on that.
OK, here are some "official" definitions:
- jam: A preserve made from whole fruit boiled to a pulp with sugar.
- jelly: A soft, semisolid food substance with a resilient consistency, made by the setting of a liquid containing pectin or gelatin or by the addition of gelatin to a liquid, especially such a substance made of fruit juice containing pectin boiled with sugar.
- marmalade: A clear, jellylike preserve made from the pulp and rind of fruits, especially citrus fruits.
- preserves: Fruit cooked with sugar to protect against decay or fermentation.
So my earlier definition was slightly off, in that jam is apparently cooked with sugar (although I've bought stuff labeled "jam" that had no sugar in it at all).Here are the relationships between the various substances, as I understand them:Or, in Python:I hope that this helps distinguish between the various types of delicious fruit-derived toppings for sandwiches, English muffins, etc.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
when making a PBJ, the J seeps through the bread. To solve that problem, Smuckers put PB on BOTH pieces of bread.
:)
:)
Gee, when I was a kid, my mom taught me to put regular butter on the jam side for exactly that reason. If only we'd known it was such an "innovative" idea, I'd be the son of a millionaire right now!
Or maybe it's the use of peanut butter instead of regular butter that makes it quite so new and innovative and inobvious? Yeah, substituting peanut butter for butter on a PBJ - nobody would *ever* think of that!
Anyway, I just had myself a patent-violating sandwich to, er, celebrate.
The second "jelly" class definition (the one following the "jam" class definition) in each of the C++ and Python code sections in the parent post should instead be "marmalade".
I most humbly and fruitfully apologize (USA) / apologise (UK) for any confusion that this may have caused.
Also, I forgot to mention that the code is copyright 2005 by me, and is licensed under version 2 of the GPL (not that new controversial version 3).
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Smuckers has now filed lawsuits against PB&J pirates. However a new PB&J making network "PeanutTorrent" has made it harder for Smuckers to track illegal sandwich makers.
That looks like "wheat grass" to me. Hope that helps.
That sounds like a mechanical/manual version of one of these. You've been able to buy things like that here in the UK for at least 20 years. Same idea - switch that on and it heats up, make a sandwhich, put it in, close the toaster and it cuts and crimps it while it cooks it. I recommend buttering the *outside* of the bread, it makes it brown nicely.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Serta files for a patent on, "waking up in the morning"
...Life is like a bad analogy
There is 200 or more ysars of prior art here, Every technique has been done, from PB on both slices, th crimping, to cutting the crust...If this can get a patent in the first place, well, maybe I should try to patent the process of taking a shit and sue EVERYONE, it makes as much sence.
I only started making PB&J sandwiches recently because my mom never made them when I was a kid. I put PB on both slices because it didn't occur to me to only put it on 1 slice. (I mean, something should go on the other slice, right?) Well, no cease-and-desist letters for me!
Let me go make my own..Ok..I'll start with 2 slices of healthy wheat bread. Add a serving of peanut butter and top it off with that special 0 mg jelly you found.
Bread - 128mg sodium per slice = 256 mg
2 Tbsp of peanut butter =150 mg
Total for my homemade version = 406 mg sodium
Whew, thank god a dodged that corporate bullet and made my own at home.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
I used to wonder why the makers were so stupid they never made them big enough for a slice of bread. Then I realized it was supposed to be pinching the edges closed.
Now I just wonder why the stupid makers always put stupid nooks and crannies everywhere where melted chese and grease runs such that it's difficult to clean without a wet paper towel and toothpick.
Hello, Tefal? HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?!?!?
I sniff a marketting opportunity! The truly (not lying) e-z-clean sandwitch maker.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Sorry but the wheel is being patented by an Australian man. Link from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1418 165.stm
Now where is my Cloak of Invisibility
I will NOT BUY any of your products simply because you attempted to get this frivolous patent. Any food and or food making process should NEVER be patented. Food wants to remain open, you know, like software.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
How to Improve Reading Skills
That likes like chives to me.
I can finally eat my pb&j sandwiches in peace!
All patents deal with technology -- it's their purpose. Just because it doesn't deal with computers doesn't change that.
Now, in this case, the technology being patented is so absurdly outdated, the story HAD to be accepted.
It's been a long time.
" I'd like to get a nickle everytime your girlfriend gives you a blow job." If the stories are true, /. readers will not be making you very much money... Better try one of those ... 3. Profit model ideas.
[UID-HeinzIntel]
There should be a person hired as the first person one meets when entering a patent office. And this person's only job should be to occasionally say "shut the fuck up".
With all the kids that go into shock as a reaction to peanut butter, it would seem irresponsable to include it on the lunch menu. Its a problem and with our friendly lawyers today it would seem to open Smuckers to a massive lawsuite when a student expires from the reaction. (Uh...the school nurse is either fired due to the budget, or is forbidden to administer the antidote!) Besides who likes Peanut Butter anyway, cream cheese and strawberry is a better dish.......
the Patent Office said the "crimped edges are similar to a ravioli or pie crust"
Shouldn't the patent office instead be saying something like "rimped edges are similar to but legally distinct from a ravioli or pie crust".
If the veggie in question is called bieslook in Dutch (assuming Dutch, because of the .nl in the website, assuming bieslook because of the image name) according to a dictionary, those would be chives.
Until your mom turns around and sues your ass for stealing her intellectual property rights.
No because that's the reason they are rejecting it. The crimping is not legally distinct.
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
Actually, your mother's recipes for hash browns would be a trade secret, not a patent.
barzelay.net
Perhaps you missed the part where the application was denied by the patent office. It only went to court as an attempt to overturn this decision.
not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
I got the claims off of the USPTO website. It's an already-granted patent, 6,004,596 issued in 1999, which Smuckers obtained by buying out the "inventors" company. The denial story is about their attempts to expand it even further.
Of course, I am now going to file a lawsuit against everyone in the country, because they all take dumps (though not necessarily in a toilet exactly like the one I described), and therefore, they must pay me royalties each time they do so.
What exactly is the difference between software patents, and patents on other trivial and completely obvious processes...or is this level of abstraction a little too difficult for you?
what you find so redeeming about this 'crust'? It's the burnt part of the bread!
Well when you bake bread you really can't help but make it with a crust.
Now I happen to like crusts, but then I either bake my own bread or buy fancy artisnal bread fresh from a bakery. These breads typically have a nice chewy crust to them.
I agree that the crust on most mass-market breads especially your typical white bread like Wonder seems rather pointless. (then to my mind most mass market bread is rather pointless)
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
[blockquote]Please. The only patent you own on fucking involves a form of automation.[/blockquote] This builds on the patents I have for a manual "fucking" implimentation. I demand you cease and desist all automated fucking related activities.
Oh yeah... the Christmas lights guy...
So how do we know those are REAL hash browns!? Maybe you pre-cooked them and then placed them on the grill for the photos...
Here's some bedtime reading for Alek.
Those are chives...
My wifes family makes a wrap where they take cream cheese, add some milk and whip it until it is creamy. Then you put a spoonful on a slice of lunch meat and wrap it around a chive, it's pretty good.
She calls them onion wraps.
Cheap storage VM.
It's people like you who think that way that ruin everything for everyone. If we started removing things that everyone had a reaction to, we would have to remove ALL food from school. For every type of food there is, we now have someone who will become deathly ill when they eat it. Grow up.
Whatever happened to natural selection anyways? Was it banned when I had my back turned?
FYI, when a person (like Mrs. Schiavo, or a child in a custody case) is unable to represent their own interests, the court appoints a neutral third party to act on their behalf, called a Guardian Ad Ligtem. It was not a case of the husband's attorney vs. the parents' attorney; it was a case of the husband's attorney AND the guardian ad ligtem against the parents.
As I said earlier, which you convieniently ignored, the Constitutional issue would be the same regardless of whether the parents' and husband's positions were inverted -- it is a guiding principle of our legal system the Executive and Legislative branches shall not muck with the decisions of the Judicial branch, period, end of story.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?