Slashdot Mirror


Nestle Patents Coffee Beer

Dotnaught writes "New Scientist reports that Nestec, a Nestle subsidiary, has applied for a patent on a fermented coffee beverage. In other words, coffee beer -- it foams like beer and packs the caffeine of coffee, with "fruity and/or floral notes due to the fermentation of the coffee aroma."

471 comments

  1. bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhh yes, more god-aweful piss for americans to drink.

    Here, I'll unzip my pants and give you a taste of the good stuff.

    1. Re:bah by Daedalus-Ubergeek · · Score: 1

      Contrary to popular thought, some of the best beer out there is American. Arrogant Bastard Ale and Storm King Stout, anybody?

    2. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean lily-livered ale and sheep-urine stout?

      I mean, better than "average" in the US is along the lines of "shit I wouldn't drink on a dare" most other places.

      Nice try though.

    3. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allow me to solve this conundrum for all of you:

      All beer is piss.

      Got that? If you're looking for alcohol, go grab something else. Maybe some wine, perhaps some whiskey, maybe a Martini, perhaps even some Vodka. But beer? It's piss. All of it. No exceptions. So just do yourself a favor and avoid it. The only excuse you can possibly have for not avoiding it is that you want to get smashed out of your mind on the cheap, in which case you shouldn't be drinking anyway.

    4. Re:bah by back_pages · · Score: 1
      Contrary to popular thought, some of the best beer out there is American. Arrogant Bastard Ale and Storm King Stout, anybody?


      No thanks.


      Beats me where these are from, but try St. Peters Porter or Original Flag Porter. (Original Flag may be US? Regardless, it beats any of the numerous US porters I've tried.) Any stout must top the standards of that category - Guiness, Murphy's, etc., and Storm King didn't do it for me. Even Rasuputin Imperial Stout was a more interesting drink. There are about 9 million different competitors in the ale category. It's hard for me, personally, to hand the #1 award to Arrogant Bastard, but it isn't a bad choice.

    5. Re:bah by ScottyUK · · Score: 1

      Guinness

      --
      Nice weather for penguins...
    6. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: all american beer is piss.

      See, in many places beer is no cheaper, if not more expensive, than anything else in terms of price per mL of alcohol.

    7. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. Just because Europeans like paying 6 euros per liter of gasoline, and 10 euros per bottle of beer, doesn't make the beer anything less than piss. I mean, have you looked at the color of beer lately? Any beer? It's *all* piss.

    8. Re:bah by thousandinone · · Score: 0

      Home-brewed Mead for the win. As long as you don't screw up in the racking process. Beats any beer I've found in America to date.

      And as far as getting drunk on the cheap, A cheap bottle of vodka will give you more alcohol for your buck. Beer for the lose.

    9. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I mean, have you looked at the color of beer lately? Any beer? It's *all* piss.

      If my piss is ever as black as my beer I'm going straight to the emergency room.

    10. Re:bah by Teilo · · Score: 1

      D F T T!!!

      --
      Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
    11. Re:bah by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      Correction: The beer most American's drink is piss.

      Believe me, American microbrewers are cranking beers every bit as tasty (and often more daring and interesting) than what they are drinking on the other side of the Atlantic.

      The one possible exception (but not with respect to variety) would be Belgium, because they make some fantastic stuff!

      --Joey

    12. Re:bah by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Black Butte Porter from Deschutes Brewery beats the more mass produced stuff all hollow. But I don't know if you can find it anyplace outside of Oregon...

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    13. Re:bah by Lord+Kestrel · · Score: 1

      It's sold up here in Seattle :) Even regular restaurants carry it sometimes, hell I've seen taps of it at Red Robin of all places.

  2. Drew Carey Beat them to it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    OMFG. Buzz Beer is teh shit! Kdawg will pwn your mother!

    1. Re:Drew Carey Beat them to it!! by Parham · · Score: 1

      I wonder how the Drew Carey staff can get in on this patent... Or better yet, what if they decide to claim this patent instead, how weird would that be. I mean, they did create Buzz Beer afterall.

    2. Re:Drew Carey Beat them to it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nestle pattented fermented coffee whereas buzz bear is caffinated beer.

    3. Re:Drew Carey Beat them to it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While they did come up with the concept (sort of), they didn't come up with a process to actually make it. So they have no claim to a patent or any sort of royalties.

      Now if the company started calling their product "Buzz Beer" or "Cap-beer-cino"? Then yeah, they'd have a solid case.

    4. Re:Drew Carey Beat them to it!! by toddbu · · Score: 1

      Even if this is true, it sure goes toward "prior art".

      --
      If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
    5. Re:Drew Carey Beat them to it!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have patented ideas without making a working proto-type before hand.

    6. Re:Drew Carey Beat them to it!! by c4seyj0nes · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if Buzz Beer would count. Buzz Beer was just beer and coffee mixed together, while Nestles concoction is actually a fermented coffee drink. I believe the difference in the process of creating the two would be signifigant enough to make it a very different beverage.

      Personally, I'm glad people are still trying to combine my two favorite drinks. I've tried mixing coffee with beer, and its not bad, but not really good either. Maybe this will be an improvement.

      --
      "In wine there is wisdom. In beer there is strength. In water there is bacteria." --Old German Proverb
    7. Re:Drew Carey Beat them to it!! by NewWorldDan · · Score: 0

      In any event, food/beverage patents are pretty difficult to get due both to the wealth of prior art available and the issue of "non obvious to one skilled in the art." Unless they've come up with a revolutionary new brewing process (which I doubt highly), at best, if they get anything, it'll likely be a patent specific to their exact recipie.

      Regardless, I won't be drinking this new beverage. I'll stick with my two favorite beers; Summit Extra Pale Ale for when I'm feeling upscale and Grain Belt for when I'm slumming it.

    8. Re:Drew Carey Beat them to it!! by ibm1130 · · Score: 1

      If you actually had to implement the idea, so-called submarine patents and in
      particular abominations like Lemelson's patent mill wouldn't be a problem.

    9. Re:Drew Carey Beat them to it!! by rhvarona · · Score: 1

      I strongly recommend trying an expresso martini.

  3. What every college town needs by iamjambon · · Score: 5, Funny

    More wide-awake drunks.

    1. Re:What every college town needs by coolidk · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well at least they'll be able to drive home without having to worry about falling asleep behind the wheel. I suppose that's a good thing :)

    2. Re:What every college town needs by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      And this is why I have decided to patent my process for fermenting Jolt Cola.

    3. Re:What every college town needs by Lord+Kestrel · · Score: 1

      Funny, one of the beers made by a local microbrew here is a coffee stout, called "Wide Awake Drunk". Quite tasty, if rather strong.

  4. Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by glomph · · Score: 1

    in the Seattle area (Double Black) years ago!

    Another frivolous patent.

    Patently ridiculous!

    1. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by vought · · Score: 1

      Gawd. Doublebalck stout was the shit. A chocolate stout brewed with coffee. Everyone I told about it made a face...until they tried it.

      Bring back Doubleblack stout! Prior art!

    2. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by a.d.trick · · Score: 0

      Patently ridiculous!

      My God! I've got it. I should pattent ridiculousness (tm). Then I can take ownership of everthing that goes through the Patent Office.

      /me goes of to become a millionaire

    3. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by ElBorba · · Score: 2, Funny

      As much as I tend to disdain the very novelty of redhook beers and patently despise the evil empire that Howard Shultz begat I can say without hesitation that Double Black was one of the better middle-of-the-road too-sweet porters out there and it was ONLY the bitterness of harbucks' over-roasted (they call it "full city") mcdonald's-coffee-for-three-dollars-a-cup beans that made the bland sweetness of yet another redhook underachiever stand up and say hello. I mean, the only beverage I hate more than Redhook beer is Starbucks coffee... but this stuff was pretty tolerable.

      To take only a small tangent, did you know that the now world famous "full city" starbucks roast is the result of an ever-increasing demand for espresso-quality beans? Turns out that starbucks buys so many boatloads of coffee every year that they no longer bother much with traditional coffee plantations and now specialize in converting any massive coffee crop into either House Blend or Espresso Roast? You see, when you sell more coffee than Folgers and Maxwell House it means that, guess what, you don't get quality, you only get quantity! How to compensate for a decidedly lower quality bean? Burn it just a little more than the other guy and call it your signature roast. How you call it a signature roast when there are no human roasters at the plant any more is beyond me. I but you didn't know that either! Robots make starbucks coffee. Oh, and it tastes exactly like dog shit which is why no one has ordered an actual "espresso" at starbucks in nearly 14 years. I'm surprised they even have it on the menu. "Oh, do you want that con pana (because otherwise you can taste the feces)?" Also, who are you retards who order a "viente" latte? Did you know that baby cows don't drink that much milk in one day? And you're having one with a feckin' currant scone? Oh, sorry, make that a viente latte with sugar free chocolate squeezins. Aaaaaargh... I HATE YOU! Get back in your Touareg and die.

      Next week's rant:

      Volkswagen

      --
      "The Borba"
    4. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

      I tend to disdain the very novelty of redhook beers

      I agree Redhook can no longer brew a decent beer. But they were amongst the first in the microbrew revolution and did, up until around 1990, brew pretty good beer. By the way, there is a connection all the way back to day one between Starbucks and Redhook - a guy name Gordon Bowker. He co-founded both companies.

    5. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by KylePflug · · Score: 1
      Also, who are you retards who order a "viente" latte? Did you know that baby cows don't drink that much milk in one day?


      Dude, WTF? There's less than a glass of milk in a viente latte. In other words, less than the recommended daily allotment.

      In fact, most grande lattes have less than half a glass. I used to make several a day back in junior high/high school. I mean, sure, it's stupid to drink a viente strawberries and creme every day or whatever, but a latte is not that bad. It's some coffee with a few ounces of steamed milk. Whoop-de-do.
    6. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by ewhac · · Score: 1
      Yes! RedHook Double-Black Stout. One of my favorites, and deeply disappointing that they discontinued it.

      Schwab

    7. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      I once drank a grande Chantico. I win!

    8. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      I have nothing to say except 0.0

    9. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by thegameiam · · Score: 1

      whoa there pardner - take a deep breath...

      and remember there are decaffinated brands with just as much flavor as the real thing* ;)

      -David

      * - Val Kilmer in Real Genius

      --
      Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
    10. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Maddox? Is that you?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    11. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? Redhook ESB is still a "decent" beer.

      I would like to try the double black as one of my favorite beers is Rogue's Chocolate Stout (and Young's is good too) which has a (slight?) coffee flavor to it

      --Joey

    12. Re:Redhook/Starbucks produced a coffee beer by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      How's the diabetes going? It is good stuff I must admit ;)

      --Joey

  5. Woohoo! by sexybomber · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new drunk AND hyper overlords!

  6. ObSimpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Marge: "Caw-fee!"
    Bartender: "Bee-er?"

  7. Why do people drink this crap? by CyricZ · · Score: 1, Troll

    Why do people willingly put crap like this into their bodies? Caffeine isn't good for you. Neither is alcohol. Combine the two and you're not helping yourself.

    Indeed, many of the best programmers I ever worked with were strictly against the use of caffeine and alcohol. Why is that? Because they needed to be at the top of their game, developing software that cannot fail. Hyperactivity or a clouded mind does not lead to good code, even if some claim it does.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um actually both are not harmful to a person in moderatation.

      in fact both have health benefits.

      so you are flat out fucking wrong biatch

    2. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent was only stating common sense, not trying to start a fight.

    3. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Krach42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WTF kind of programmers are you around? When I tell people that I avoid caffiene, they look at me like I'm crazy.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    4. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of people do it for the social aspect (go to a bar, pub, kegger, party, whatever) or for peer acceptance (don't want to come across as a wuss).

      In other words, high school.

    5. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      They may not kill you, but they sure as hell don't help you. And no, they do not have health benefits. Certain alcoholic drinks, like red wine, contain substances that do offer health benefits. But the alcohol does not.

      All alcohol does is impair the drinker's mind. Caffeine causes undue anxiety. Those are not good things to suffer from when you're trying to write solid software, especially when facing deadlines and changing requirements.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    6. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why are you so worried about what other people put in their bodies? You sound like a catholic bishop fretting about heretical groups that indulge in the most unholy & sinful outlawed texts.

    7. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      show me a development office that doesnt have a coffee machine, and I will show you a bunch of developers who work 8am-4pm and are very tierd by EOD.

      You need the coffee for a kick. Beer I agree,does not help while developing (maybe for some people?)

      I do most of my best work late at night and man, after working 9 hours in office, and 2-3 hours at home... I need coffee !

    8. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by CyricZ · · Score: 0, Troll

      WTF kind of programmers are you around? When I tell people that I avoid caffiene, they look at me like I'm crazy.

      I worked with real programmers. The kind who develop mission critical software where mistakes are not tolerated. Aeroplane flight control software systems, for instance.

      Such people cannot be impaired while coding, and thus avoid alcoholic and caffeinated beverages completely.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    9. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by servognome · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why do people willingly put crap like this into their bodies? Caffeine isn't good for you. Neither is alcohol. Combine the two and you're not helping yourself.

      It's fun to play chemistry with your body. Showdowns between Starbucks and NyQuil, NoDoz and Sudafed, Red Bull and Sleeping pills. It's legal so it can't possibly hurt me, right? ;)

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    10. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Why are you so worried about what other people put in their bodies?

      I don't want the developers of mission critical software being impaired while designing and implementing software. I'm talking about software that can result in people dying if it contains errors. The sort of software controlling nuclear power plant shutdown systems, or aeroplane flight control software.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    11. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by afra242 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Off topic, but it comes up every now and again.

      If it's in moderation, alcohol and/or caffeine is alright. Maybe you're thinking of extreme cases, like the unemployed guy down the street drinking 10 beers before lunch time. I have met many smart people who drink alcohol socially. Caffeine has been around for centuries and again, within moderation, it isn't going to kill you or make you stupid.

      Before you start harping on people drinking caffeine or alcohol, take a look at what people eat. The nutrition value of meals these days, in the US, has taken a large nosedive. Obesity is huge, and it is mostly because of what people eat and the lack of exercise.

      Moderated beer consumption doesn't make one a good or bad programmer....

    12. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regular exercise is a far better option than resorting to caffeine highs. With such exercise you're able to maintain a better mental state, and do not tire as easily. It's better to give developers a gym pass than a coffee machine.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    13. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by dangitman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Indeed, many of the best programmers I ever worked with were strictly against the use of caffeine and alcohol.

      While many of the best humans I have ever met are strong advocates of caffeine and alcohol use.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    14. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by dangitman · · Score: 1
      contain substances that do offer health benefits. But the alcohol does not.

      Alcohol does have health benefits in moderation - for mental health, that is.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    15. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by CyricZ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Actually, those people don't exist. You hallucinated them while extremely buzzed on caffeine, and drinking piss from your father's cock (thinking it was good ol' American beer).

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    16. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Slow+Smurf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it wrong to assume there is some method of testing/supervision for new programmers and reviews for old to avoid that very situation happening?

      I don't give a rats ass if a person is stoned, hyper on caffine or buzzed if they accomplish what they attempt, always. If there isn't a method to see if a person is capable for this mission critical software, THAT is the problem.

    17. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by shmlco · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Caffeine causes undue anxiety. Those are not good things to suffer from when you're trying to write solid software..."

      I don't know. A little extra anxiety and paranoia might be a good thing for people writing antivirus software and firewalls....

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    18. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I worked with real programmers. The kind who develop mission critical software where mistakes are not tolerated. Aeroplane flight control software systems, for instance. Such people cannot be impaired while coding, and thus avoid alcoholic and caffeinated beverages completely.

      And what do these Real Red Blooded Programmers do after work? Sit around waiting for the Bug Alarm, at which point they slide down the Fire Pole leading from their basement above the office to the office itself? No rational person says to drink on the Job when it's Important. Like when you have to make Real True Programs.

      But after a long day of Untrue Work nobody wants some arrogant Shitstain like you who can't handle his beer saying in a Fake British accent, "Oh, I honestly do say! Why do people ingest such vile fluids! My word! I certainly don't need alcohol to have a good time! Dear? Are you awake? Dear? Everybody Love's Raymond is about to commence! Dear? Oh, Dear!"

      In conclusion, you are a Bloody Cuntflap.

    19. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.

      Hunter S. Thompson

    20. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by scotch · · Score: 1

      Caffeine has benefites for endurance athletes - runners, cyclists, etc. That's besides the obvious benefit of keeping you awake and alert. Not driving into a tree is good for your health. QED you fucking prude.

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    21. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Lots of things are okay in moderation.

      On the other hand, why? Just because drinking a small amount of alcohol or caffiene will have no serious side effects isn't enough reason to drink it.

      I decided a while ago that alcohol, and to a much lesser degree caffiene have no real place in my life, and so I don't drink them.

    22. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by alanbs · · Score: 1

      You are right. The thousand monkeys I have pounding on keyboards churning out software could surely be more productive. I thought they were sitting around throwing excrement at one another because they are monkeys but now that you mention it, it could the espresso machine I just put in near the water cooler. I think I am going to have to take it out and put in a treadmill.

    23. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by teslafreak · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Yeah, pretty much the only thing there (as far as I have heard, but, haven't really looked into it) is the grape seed extract. Which is very good for you, but can be bought in pill form, thus elimating the unhealthy aspects of drinking alcohol.

      I haven't heard of any health benefits from caffeiene, although I haven't noticed it causing anxiety though, even in mass amounts. Although for me it slows the time it takes to recall things.

      Interesting concept, but a coffee beer? Sounds vile.

    24. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, explain this wise guy: My grandfather was 92 when he died. According to him (when he lived) and to my parents he has not have a single cold or flue in his entire life. When asked why, he did not know. But one habit that he did have was: every day at around noon he would drink 50 - 100 mil of pure vodka. Nothing less and nothing more...

    25. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *HIC*I...I doon't knooow wha..whats you got against meee*HIC* You people CLAIM that your sec...secra...secetary'z deshk isn't a terlet, but I...I knows better...so *HIC*whys you always gotta call the cops when I relieve myself during your meeeeeetings wit za bigs clientsh? It's...It's *HIC* discrimination!

    26. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by teslafreak · · Score: 0
      Ouch...

      Seriously though, consuming either substance doesn't make you a bad person. Also, a ton of the code out there was written by people hopped up on caffeine, and works perfectly.

      It may hinder some people's ability to concentrate, but as with any other drug it effects people in different ways. Some people are just fine.

      I agree with you on one thing though, I wouldn't want someone developing mission critical software while sloshed. Your practically asking for errors. Of course if their software is a collabrative effort (and most inportant stuff should be) then chances are someone would notice the bugs and correct them.

    27. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dood. that's not nice. my dad's catholic bishop...

    28. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by corpsiclex · · Score: 1

      wow dude..i've done every one of those in the past two weeks.

      --

      eBayDig 1s a typo saerch engien
    29. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Krach42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude... shut the hell up. I work with real programmers, where if we get something wrong it hits millions if not billions of people, and they all get mad.

      We do "real programming" as much as anyone else.

      Fact is, you can take whatever opinions you have about beer and caffeine, but the average person doesn't share those opinions. The average person sees nothing wrong with either caffeine or beer. This is the reason why Starbuck's makes tons of money, and why any gas station has probably about 1/4 of the beverages that it has for sale which are alcoholic.

      Your small little prudish subsection of the world may not give a shit about caffeinated beer, but neither will devout Mormons, Arabs, nor dry counties all around the country. Just because you don't give a shit, doesn't mean no one else will. Especially even among even "real" programmers.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    30. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by mikkom · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Certain alcoholic drinks, like red wine, contain substances that do offer health benefits. But the alcohol does not.
      Both of them have health benefits. A recent study even told that (this is crazy) more alcohol you drink, not just red wine as you point, better it is to your hearth. Some research also suggests that moderate drinking may cut the risk of developing dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. The only problem is that it's also very harmful to drink large amounts of alcohol so the harmful effects are a lot bigger issue than health benefits.

      Also, There has been a lot discussion lately about coffees health benefits, see the following articles for example:
      Coffee found to be high in health-giving antioxidants
      Coffee is America's No. 1 Source of Antioxidants
      Coffee: The New Health Food?
    31. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Belseth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Beg to differ. Let's start programming and you drink spring water while I drink Red Bull and expresso and we'll see who's still functional in 72 hours. I've worked around people that do Cocaine and they get worthless after awhile but the caffine drinkers fair well. Different drugs effect the body in different ways. I do fine large amounts of caffine clear your head and can somewhat overcome a lack of sleep. I can't recommend it and ideally the best is 8 hours of good quality sleep but I find for various reasons it's not always possible. The bigger issue is exercise and trying to eat well. Caffine isn't the dangerous drug it was once made out to be and the body tolerates it fairly well. The biggest issue I can see with fermented coffee beverages is caffine is a dieretic and the body needs water to process the alcohol so you might find hang overs worse unless you drink extra water. If you are fantatical about your body I'd avoid sitting infront of a computer, drop your calorie intack below 1,000 a day and pick a career where you are kept physically active for 8 to 10 hours a day. Also go for a low stress lifestyle. Stress will do a hundred times the damage caffine will ever do and that is a fact. Outside of diet and exercise stress would be in the tope three for americans for contributing to ill health. If you are drinking Caca Cola I'd worry far more about the sugar than the caffine. I think the acid it contains would harm your health more than caffine. In coffee the cream and sugar are worse for you than the caffine. No one is perfect the idea is to do your best.

    32. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by ankarbass · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have some bad news for you. Your mission critical software has errors. Maybe not quite as many as some "less mission critical software", but it has errors.

      BTW: It isn't just guesswork that reduces errors. If you have formally proven your systems, (which I'm quite sure you have right?) then they are correct. It isn't necessary for the implementer really to be sober as long as you have a formal proof and others, including yourself with your pristine substance free (no sugar right) body, can check the proof. Going from a provably correct system to real code is pretty easy work what with all those nice tight pre/post conditions an all.

      Oh, and of course you only use compilers that are subjected to similar standards, right?

      And please don't tell me any of this runs on windows, none of it runs on windows, right? I bet you're only solid mission critical operating systems that have had every line of code checked and double checked against a formal system? Right?

      After all, we wouldn't want the software with bugs. It has to be as good as the rest of the airplane, bug free, nothing will fail, nothing has been overlooked, the design is PERFECT!!!

      Reminds of that accident that happened sometime in the late eighties/early nineties where an airplane toilet had its contents jetisoned while still in flight and the frozen contents came crashing into someone's living room. The victim was quoted as saying "Of course it surprised me, the last thing I expect to come crashing into my house in this day and age is an icy BM."

      --
      Wanted: Clever sig, top $ paid, all offers considered.
    33. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Xaria · · Score: 1

      You're right, exercise is better. Have you looked at the majority of software engineers lately?

      I *had* a gym pass once ... I even paid for it myself. I went three times. I *hated* it. There's a table tennis table in the lunch room and I occasionally play. My main form of exercise is Dance-Dance-Revolution (well, StepMania actually, at home) and carrying a baby around on the days I don't work.

      On the other hand, when I step out of the office to get a coffee I always do it with friends, and it's a great way for me to relax. When I don't have a coffee, I burn out by 2pm and go in search of sugar. One espresso a day or lots of calories ... I know which is better for my health, thank you!

      As for alcohol, I think once or twice a month (or even a week) is reasonable. And I don't binge.

      Besides, bad code happens. That's why any company doing such software as you are speaking of has a verification department. My other half used to write code related to emergency services. You don't get much more critical than that ... and work occasionally put on wine in the afternoon. So I'd love to see real solid research for "wine == bad code" because I think that's a crack up.

      Excess ANYTHING is bad for you - even exercise.

    34. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by TheAcousticMotrbiker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Everything in moderation, including moderation.

      I half a 1 and a half hour commute each day.
      I do this on a bicyle

      I also drink coffee (usually in moedration) and alcohol (in moderation).

      Then again, Im currently working in moscow for a week, so I have no biking commute, I drink about a dozen cups of coffee a day, (and Im not going to talk about alcohol, though compared to the locals Im hardly drinking anything).

      Ive also spend time doing similar work in muslim countries (no alcohol allowed, and tea, tea, tea all day long, no exercise either).

      Ive also spend time in countries where my habits were between these extremes, doing similar work.

      I've looked back on the quality of work there and can safely state that there is no correlation between the quality of work, and the type of beverages or the amount of physical exercise.

    35. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by DeafByBeheading · · Score: 1
      If you are fantatical about your body I'd avoid sitting infront of a computer, drop your calorie intack below 1,000 a day and pick a career where you are kept physically active for 8 to 10 hours a day.


      Um... The USDA uses a 2000 Calorie reference diet. That's for a normal lifestyle. If you put eight to ten hours of physical activity in and only consume 1000 Calories, most people are not gonna last long...
      --
      Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
    36. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by N3Roaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, coffee has some positive health effects. The medical debate on this dates back to the 9th century*. Unfortunately, your first two links are really weak in supporting that argument. Coffee only has about 4% the antioxidant effect of Vitamin C. The study cited is not inconsistent with these results. Rather, it just means that Americans drink a lot of coffee. Then again, the antioxidant effect of green tea isn't that much better than coffee but it's one of the main contributors to the tea as health food craze.

      * this is really a conservative estimate based on when a description of the health effects of coffee first entered print. Given that the latest anybody dates coffee's emigration from Abyssinia (Ethiopia) to Arabia (Yemen) is the 6th century, it seems likely that various physicians have had some opinion on the plant and the various concoctions made from it longer than that.

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
    37. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by zoloto · · Score: 4, Funny

      whoa, someone needs to lay off the caffeine

    38. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      I think that human beings are an incredibly variable lot, and some people can tolerate the effects of caffeine (and indeed lack of sleep) a lot better than others.

      Caffeine makes me jumpy and makes my heart feel like it's doing crazy things long before it really starts to keep me awake. And when it does keep me awake, it might as well not for all the difference it makes to my productivity.

      Pseudoephedrine on the other hand... wheeeeeeeeeeee :)

    39. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Burning+Plastic · · Score: 1

      NoDoz and Sudafed - no showdown here - just a couple of stimulants up for a party!

      --
      [All Your Fish Are Belong To Us]
    40. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The recommended daily calorie intake is 2500 for a man and 2000 for a woman, though this does of course vary with your size and activity level. If you only eat 1000 calories you'll starve unless you are literally doing nothing all day and even then I'm not sure.

      I find caffeine in small amounts does help me, but it makes me worse off if I have it all the time because I sleep less and like you said caffeine is no substitute for a good nights sleep, so it is advisable to have occasional days without caffeine to stop your body getting too used to it.

      Don't forget that while stress may be worse for you than caffeine, caffeine will most likely lead to you being more tired irritable and stressed out, a good reason not to have it all the time if you ask me.

    41. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by squoozer · · Score: 1
      Obesity is huge...

      Isn't that kind of the point?

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    42. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that, I'm a hell of a lot more likely to make mistakes coding if I've been working for 10 hours without caffiene than I would with caffiene.

      Caffiene is a stimulant. If keeps you alert so you can spot the errors.

    43. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Dogmatron · · Score: 1
      WTF kind of programmers are you around?

      Um... diabetic, perhaps?

    44. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A small amount of things are okay in moderation.

    45. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      And no, they do not have health benefits

      I guess that would be why my doctor recommended I drink coffee or pop a no-doz when I feel a migraine coming on?

      It often works, too (some of those bastards are just unstoppable).

    46. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Ehldas · · Score: 1

      Caffeine's a vaso-dilator : it causes the blood vessels in your head to relax, dropping effective bloodpressure and reducing pain from it. This is why coffee works to reduce headaches, and why many painkillers include a substantial amount of caffeine in the pill along with the more active ingredient.

    47. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I then must worry about "mission ciritcal" NORMAL people, like ambulance drivers and firefighters...

      Wait. Every time you drive a car someone is at risk. Screw the don't drink and drive thing, we need don't drink a coke and drive!

      Moderation. Yes, repeat that word. Real adults know their limits. Sure a pot of coffee will make me purform less well, but 2-3 cups has no real mental imparement. (for me), and thus I indulge.

      Fat foods, and a lazy life style could also hinder their abilities. As could dating. Freindship. Or anything else causing stress.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    48. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by shawb · · Score: 1

      For some people, caffeine affords better concentration. People with ADD and similar disorders generally have better attention when given stimulants such as Ritalin, although many stimulants seem to increase concentration, including nicotine.

      Erowid has a fairly extensive writeup on caffeine, as they do with just about any psychoactive substance. Their general stance is usually pro-use, but they seem to be careful about listing the warnings and side effects, as well as tips for breaking addictions, handling withdrawal and dealing with overdoses.

      Erowid also has some good writeups on civil freedoms and laws which many slashdotters would find interesting. Although much of the discussion applies to drug use and possesion, their views on the first and fourth amendmants make interesting reading and are a good start for actual reasearch on civil rights.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    49. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call that real programming?

      When I get something wrong, I hit billions and *one cow* who all go mad.

    50. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Jonathan · · Score: 1

      Why do people willingly put crap like this into their bodies? Caffeine isn't good for you. Neither is alcohol. Combine the two and you're not helping yourself.

      As many people have said, "Ever notice that people who don't drink are generally the people you wouldn't *want* to drink with if they did?"

      Indeed, many of the best programmers I ever worked with were strictly against the use of caffeine and alcohol. Why is that?

      Because their mommies and daddies and preachers said they'd go to to hell if they drank the stuff?

    51. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caffeine isn't good for you. Neither is alcohol. Combine the two and you're not helping yourself.

      OH YEAH?! YOU CAN SHOVE THAT UP YOUR FUCKIN ASS BUDDY! THEY'LL TAKE MY COFFEE OVER MY DEAD BODY!!eleventy11googolplex11!!

    52. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Gumph · · Score: 1

      you must be either trolling or on crack. There is this concept called testing, it's quite handy in all the areas you describe - try it some time!

      --
      'By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes'
    53. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why do people willingly put crap like this into their bodies? Caffeine isn't good for you. Neither is alcohol. Combine the two and you're not helping yourself.

      what's that ringing sound? O wait it's the virgin detector.

    54. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude... I'm eploy..empoi....I got a job!

    55. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by albyrne5 · · Score: 1

      (In my best Apu accent)

      "I can't believe you don't shut up."

    56. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      Well for starters this drink is non-alcoholic for those of you who failed to RTFA.

      And hyperactivity certainly isn't going to lead to worse code than struggling to stay awake.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    57. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Herstal · · Score: 1

      I think it all comes down to how much you have. Too much of anything is bad for the body. In moderate quantities alcohol relieves stress and caffeine stimulates. So yes of course they can be good for you in the same way that too much is bad for you.

      --
      Time is relative like Incest.
    58. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's more of a result.

    59. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      A recent study even told that (this is crazy) more alcohol you drink, not just red wine as you point, better it is to your hearth.

      As far as I know, alcohol is good for you as long as you don't drink more than 2 glasses a day. Drink more, and it quickly becomes very unhealthy. For neither effect does it matter what kind of alcohol it is, although I believe red wine does contain a lot of anti-oxidants (just like tea, if you prefer cafeine over alcohol) which protects a bit against cancer.

    60. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by CyricZ · · Score: 0

      Who suggested that anything was "perfect"? I sure didn't. You see to be the only one considering that possibility.

      Developers hyped on caffeine or mentally clouded from drinking too much the night before do not formally prove systems very well. But then again, only fools rely strictly on formal proofs of software systems. You need to know the system you're developing for inside and out. You have to be able to consider each and every interaction that may occur. Drugged developers do not do that very well.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    61. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, you would know that this beverage has no alcohol in it. So there's no problem there. As far as caffeine goes, well, just like everything else. Moderation is good. Fruit is good for you, but if you eat 25 servings of it every day, i'm pretty sure you're body won't like it too much.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    62. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Jon_E · · Score: 1

      THEY'LL TAKE MY COFFEE OVER MY DEAD BODY!!

      at the rate you're going, I'd say you're dead on ..

    63. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by archen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Real Programmers can code anything they want. They write operating systems all the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are crazy and awsome and code all the time. I heard that there was this Real Programmer who was eating at dinner. And when some dude dropped a spoon, the Real Programmer replaced the entire town with a shell script.

      And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    64. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by DrWhizBang · · Score: 1

      Obesity is huge

      Yes, you are absolutely right. I also have notice that emaciation is not nearly as big as it used to be.

      --
      Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
    65. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues."
        --Abraham Lincoln

    66. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by sandwiches · · Score: 1

      That's nothing. When I make a mistake, I piss off the companies that depend on us, their costumers, and their dogs, and a pirate dies increasing the average global temperature.

    67. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Wow. If caffeine makes you spell and type like that, perhaps it is best to lay off of it.

      Line breaks are your friend!

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    68. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      like the unemployed guy down the street drinking 10 beers before lunch time

      Now this sort of paradox is what really bugs me about the world. When I was unemployed I was that guy. But now I've got a job I can't find either the time or the money to drink 10 beers in a day - never mind before lunch.

      But when I get laid off again there'll I 'll be. Wandering the streets drinking 10 tins before lunch whether I need 'em or not...

      Bah !

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    69. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Caffeine isn't good for you.

      Sure it is, or at least coffee is.
      It's rich in antioxidants, it helps asthma, prevents diabetes, liver cancer, bladder cancer, colon cander, and heart disease.

      It helps ramp up your metabolism, increases the proportion of fats your body burns for fuel, increases memory and IQ.

      Too much caffeine can be bad for you, but a moderate amount has plenty of benefits.

      As an athlete, I drink plenty of coffee, and feel good about it. I don't recommend loading up on Coke or Mountain Dew, but coffee is fine.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    70. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by localman · · Score: 1

      If everyone can calm down for a moment, I think there's a mixture. My dev team is roughly split on alcohol-- 5 non drinkers, 4 drinkers. And though I think most of us are okay with caffiene nobody seems to have an major addiction... just a soda or tea once in a while. I think only one or two of us drink coffee with any regularity. One of us even smokes cigarettes. And maybe even a couple of us have tried pot.

      And yes, we're REAL programmers, as everyone seems to like to claim (in fact we just won the fastest downloading retail site, though Akamai helps there).

      And, here's the amazing part: we all do good work and we all get along. TMTOWTDI, as they say.

      Cheers.

    71. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      didn't he already say that drinking too much had effects? Just drinking though isn't bad. Many people I know will have a beer or two at night, with dinner or something. I'm guessing the GP is upset about your "no substances which affect your body" stance, which seems to be limited to alcohol and caffeine. Do you also swear off all processed sugars? No medicines?
      Hell, the military allows its pilots to drink caffeine. It was one of the early performance-enhancing substances they used. It actually does work. If you drink 5 Mountain Dews, no, you'll be jittery. But a single can will sharpen your thought processes, keep you from being as tired.
      Mostly, you need to get off your high horse about substances though. Maybe do a little research, and learn what's really happening.

    72. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      To mantain body mass at that level of activity you're really going to need more like 2.5k or higher calories. Any lower and you'll probably (varies from person to person of course) get very thin very quickly.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    73. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I've taken pseudoephedrine in a mix with another medication for years as a decongestant. I'm sure the dosage was small, but every time the doc re wrote my prescription he voiced some concern (or else my mom did) about the ephed "wiring me up"...I never noticed one single side effect other than nosebleeds when our house was heated in the winter and the hot dry air + the decongestant made my nasal whatsit very suseptable to cracking.

      I never really got much effect from plain caffeine either for that mater, but the cocktail in redbull and the like does a great job at making me "un sleepy", great for road trips

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    74. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Gerr · · Score: 0

      That's an interesting theory. I have read and heard numerous other theories which suggest that a little alcohol goes a long way to keeping a person healthy (I've always believed that they mean it in the stress reduction sense, but maybe there's more to it). Of course, you'll always find your special interest, hardline religious groups who think otherwise. Can anyone say prohibition?

      Can anyone also say, "Neo-prohibition is rediculous. Alcohol and drinking alcohol is not a sin."

    75. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by fbjon · · Score: 1
      There was an interesting link on that Erowid page: Java junkies do suffer withdrawal, scientists say

      Yikes!

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    76. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      I've read the articles before... but as my PR friend says, behind every article about a product or consumable there is a publicist/PR person pushing that article.

    77. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I have a question:

      Is there a single thread on this entire site that you won't try to hijack by trolling it? It seems you're obsessed with seeing your own name on the Internet.

    78. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by wiremind · · Score: 1

      geez, whole lot of negative responses to your post.

      I for one, agree with you.

      Some of the replys say your acting like a preacher;
      wtf, those people are idiots. giving your opinion on nutritional value of caffeine and alcohol doesnt make you a religious zealot.

      Another reply argues that after 72 hours of coding the person drinking caffeine will be more able to keep working;
      this person is also an idiot. On any project where you need to be working non stop for 3 days, its very likely you need to be working that hard for weeks, not days. in which case a good nights sleep every night is much more important.
      ---off topic: In a well managed project, the last 2-4 weeks are the quietest. If you need to stay up for 3 days to get something done, thats a sign of very bad management---

      Another person argued "well you know in moderation...blah blah blah" ;
      WELL NO SHIT. no one is worried about they guy who has 2 or 3 pop's in a week.

      Your not saying: NEVER TOUCH CAFFIENE || ALCOHOL

      Some people care about their bodies and choose to be healthy and avoid these things. And it would simply be advisable to think about this before you consume.

    79. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      You have to be able to consider each and every interaction that may occur.

      Needless to say, having a formal model of your system will help substantially with the task of considering each and every interaction that may occur.

      Not that I'm suggetsing you should rely exclusively on formal proof. Rather, that your arguments against formal proof are really arguments for some kind of formality.

    80. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by gg3po · · Score: 1
      Indeed, many of the best programmers I ever worked with were strictly against the use of caffeine and alcohol.
      While many of the best humans I have ever met are strong advocates of caffeine and alcohol use.

      Correlation does not imply causality. The inverse of any of these statements are equally accurate (or innaccurate).

      --
      ---
    81. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by gg3po · · Score: 1

      Both of them have health benefits. A recent study even told that (this is crazy) more alcohol you drink, not just red wine as you point, better it is to your hearth. Some research also suggests that moderate drinking may cut the risk of developing dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. The only problem is that it's also very harmful to drink large amounts of alcohol so the harmful effects are a lot bigger issue than health benefits.

      Also, There has been a lot discussion lately about coffees health benefits

      The real issue is not whether there exist benefits. The real question is whether the promised benefits outweigh the well-observed and well-documented detriments. If "health-giving" antioxidants were suddenly discovered in crack cocaine, it wouldn't necessarily justify running out and smoking some. Like most "studies" you should always investigate who funded the research, and whether a conflict of interest was present. I seem to recall that the alcohol studies that everyone frequently cites were funded by wine growers (if someone can find the link to document this, please post it). If we're going to be skeptical on /. of M$ funded TCO "studies", we have to apply the same standard across the board.

      --
      ---
    82. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Whumpsnatz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, drinking this stuff will mark you as a Starbuckin' weenie; hoity-toity character, and no alcohol.

    83. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by mpe · · Score: 1

      If it's in moderation, alcohol and/or caffeine is alright. Maybe you're thinking of extreme cases, like the unemployed guy down the street drinking 10 beers before lunch time. I have met many smart people who drink alcohol socially. Caffeine has been around for centuries and again, within moderation, it isn't going to kill you or make you stupid.

      The same is likely to apply to many other recreational drugs which have been around for a long time.

      Moderated beer consumption doesn't make one a good or bad programmer....

      Beer has actually had the effect of making some groups of people more able to tolerate alcohol. The reason being that for a long time it was the easiest way to produce safe drinking water.

    84. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by mpe · · Score: 1

      After all, we wouldn't want the software with bugs. It has to be as good as the rest of the airplane, bug free, nothing will fail, nothing has been overlooked, the design is PERFECT!!!

      In the real world planes are complex machines with many possible failure modes some of which are considered "show stoppers" some of which are not. "Perfect software" has resulted in planes crashing because pilots didn't understand what the machine they were operating was doing.

    85. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me and my friends likr to play the race game-go into the medicine cabinet and start taking random pills and see what gets to you first-The hospital or death!

    86. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by stephenisu · · Score: 1

      No, lie. Someone get this man a beer.

      --
      Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
    87. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by teslafreak · · Score: 1
      Interesting, i'll go have a look at that. Like I said, i've never really looked into it.

      Now that I think about it, that makes sense. A few of my ADD friends have said that things seem to work in reverse for them. Specifically one said that caffeine actaully makes him tired, but in doing so makes it easier for him to focus.

      If that works for many people with ADD that's good. Some of the medications they give you are a whole lot worse for you then caffeine.

    88. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Correlation does not imply causality. The inverse of any of these statements are equally accurate (or innaccurate).

      When did I imply causation? I was merely noting an exception to the grandparent poster's theory. It was he (or she) who was claiming that not drinking makes one a better person (or at least a better programmer).

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    89. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      I'll gladly take the beer, but I don't drink caffiene, unless I'm passing out tired. Which means around one can a month. (And then only when I'm not getting enough sleep, like I have been recently.)

      Usually, one can can last me a week. That's slowly drinking the whole can over a week (ew, warm soda... but I don't care), I think my head would explode if I were to drink a whole can of coke right now.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    90. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by gg3po · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible I misunderstood your intent, but the implied meaning seemed to be your concession that although they might not make one a good programmer, alcohol and caffiene can make one a good "human being". I was trying to point out that both of you missed the mark and that alcohol and caffiene use are completely irrelevant to programming as well as "human being" skills.

      --
      ---
    91. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Ah_Puch · · Score: 1

      I think this quote from Cheers sums it up pretty well.

      Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first.In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.-Cliff Clavin

    92. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      "Obesity is huge"

      -1 Redundant

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    93. Re:Why do people drink this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be functionally retarded. Yes, speed freaks and drunks are unproductive at *any* job, however not everyone who drinks alcohol drinks in excess or is an alcoholic, nor does everyone who drinks caffeine drink a pot an hour.

      "You should never be coding for ten hours. Anybody working on serious software would never pull a stunt like that. Like you said, you start making mistakes. So it's better just to stop at eight hours, and start fresh the next day. Chances are you'll actually be in a better position to hit your deadline, because you're not stuck tracking down and fixing all the errors you made while drugged."

      That happens in any field, certainly including "mission-critical" applications.

  8. OMG by SecureTheNet · · Score: 1

    I don't drink beer, because I don't like the taste, but this sounds GOOD. mmmmm caffeine!

    --
    SecureThe.Net - Practical Resources for Securing Systems
  9. This will be perfect for late night problem sets by Physics+Nobody · · Score: 3, Funny

    The coffee keeps you going and the beer makes sure you don't have to care too much.

    --

    Physics is good

  10. Beer and coffee, together at last! by dangitman · · Score: 1
    This is the best invention since Nuts & Gum.

    Homer

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:Beer and coffee, together at last! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll call it buzz lite-beer.

    2. Re:Beer and coffee, together at last! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still no skittlebrew though ....

  11. No alcohol..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the point of this product?

  12. Free? by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

    So much for 'free as in beer.'

    1. Re:Free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this coffeer could be offered free-as-in-beer. Due to the patent, it is not free-as-in-speech, though.

    2. Re:Free? by N3Roaster · · Score: 1

      Bah! I went to the Roasters Guild retreat this year and do you know what they had for every attendee? A jug of espresso stout. Free* as in beer and, unlike what the patent covers, beer** as in beer.

      * Free as in free with purchase

      ** I suppose a certain amount of this comes down to how broadly you're willing to define beer

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
    3. Re:Free? by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

      Sure, but what about, caffeine free. I see no de-cafe beer being produced by nestle.

  13. Here we go... by evil+agent · · Score: 1
    One step closer to chocolate beer.

    How deliciously absurd!

    --
    End transmission.
    1. Re:Here we go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, pooo bahh. Pooh bahh.

      There's already such a thing. They have it at the liquor stores around here in Minnesota. I don't remember the name but its something like double chocolate.

      Sounds sick, so I've never tried it.

    2. Re:Here we go... by jdog1016 · · Score: 1

      There are actually already several beers brewed with chocolate malt on the market. Some of them are quite good.

    3. Re:Here we go... by drapmeyer · · Score: 1

      Chocolate beer was produced for the 2004 Haarlem Stripdagen in a beautifully designed bottle. Have a look here and here.

    4. Re:Here we go... by berglin · · Score: 1

      What about combining chocolate and stout?

      Young's did just tbat, with exceptionally tasty results. One of my favorites.

      http://www.youngs.co.uk/ProductPage.aspx?pageID=11 &&productID=6

    5. Re:Here we go... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Why not brew your own? Nobody made a pineapple-habenero beer, so I made my own in a 5 gallon igloo cooler for about $12. Bottle in real beer bottles, or just recycle 2L soda bottles if you're not feeling too fancy.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  14. Buzz Beer by Sohgin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think Drew Carey has a lawsuit.

    1. Re:Buzz Beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Looks like they stole an idea from The Drew Carey Show and are patenting it as if it's their own. Too bad Drew Carey probably did not patent the idea. And I remember there being a favorite fictitious drink poll being mentioned. I'm surprised that Buzz Beer didn't get mentioned there. So will writers of The Simpsons patent Skittlebrau?

    2. Re:Buzz Beer by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Call me crazy, but wouldn't the patent actually cover their particular implementation of a coffee-beer like substance? i.e., wouldn't their patent actually have a formular in there somewhere which describes what they are patenting? Looking at the Abstract for the patent they are pretty specific what it is the patent covers. I don't think Drew Carey specified in his show a technique for making the beer or the specific ratios of methylbutanol to methylbutanol and thioacetates to thiols. Not the mention the fact that Drew Carey made an alcoholic beer, and this patent only covers a process to make a non-alcoholic coffee smelling beer.

      But hey, this is Slashdot, don't let any of this stop you from declaring that patents are evil and that nothing deserves patent protection.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Buzz Beer by DeafByBeheading · · Score: 1

      Fictitious drink poll? Slurm! I want Slurm! Wait... Was Cowboy Neal an option on that poll, too? Ew...

      --
      Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
    4. Re:Buzz Beer by raoul666 · · Score: 1

      Psh, we have it in Canada already. Molson Cold Shots, alcohol plus some crap that's a natural source of caffeine or something.

      --
      When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
    5. Re:Buzz Beer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! You're douche! Keep on trollin', douchey!

    6. Re:Buzz Beer by crail · · Score: 2

      Drew Carey probably has a lawsuit with cool beer, makers of buzz beer. And nestle should probably check out Mill St. brewery before making outrageous claims over being the first to mix coffee and beer.

      Of course, if Nestle's drink doesn't have alcohol in it, I don't really see why they would compare it to beer. Many years ago I used to mix coffee with urine for my boss. It was also foamy and surely had a fermented taste, but I'd never consider marketing that to him as a beer! That would just be lying, plain and simple.

    7. Re:Buzz Beer by DrWhizBang · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure that the sense of humour has not been patented, so you are perfectly free to develop one without repercussions.

      I guess to be fair to you, the moderators marked the parent as "Insightful" so I guess they didn't get it either.

      --
      Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
    8. Re:Buzz Beer by AnotherShep · · Score: 1

      You're thinking Molson Kick. The cold shots are just in a smaller can and with a higher alcohol content (6? 6.5?).

    9. Re:Buzz Beer by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that the ratio of methylbutanol to methylbutanol is 1:1.

    10. Re:Buzz Beer by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 1
      As a Patent Examiner, I talked to another Examiner who rejected an application for a left-handed lightbulb based on a cartoon from the NY Times (I think). In that case, the rejection was because the idea was public and to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious how to make the left-handed lightbulb.

      In this case, Drew Cary had the idea. Provided it predated Nestle's start on the project, it could be prior art.

      I guess an Examiner could have said that making coffee beer from the idea on the Carey show was obvious, and that making non-alcoholic beer from the alcoholic beer was obvious, maybe a tenuous rejection could be made. Nestle would easily overcome it if there is any aspect of their process which is not obvious - the basic requirement of a patent anyway.

      My point being, patent applications can be rejected as being obvious over prior art which do not specify how to make the invention, provided the argument is valid.

    11. Re:Buzz Beer by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      On behalf of the Slashdot community I would like to take this opportunity to say that you, a patent examiner, don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Do they even train you guys?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    12. Re:Buzz Beer by cwalk · · Score: 0

      The poster above me beats me by 30 seconds and gets a '(Score:5, Insightful)', and I get a (Score:-1, Redundant). Suck my balls slashdot mods.

  15. Exhibit A by glomph · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Exhibit A by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      That's just a traditional stout with a coffee added for flavour. Completely different from fermenting the coffee itself.

  16. Have I gone to heaven? by rah1420 · · Score: 1

    Here's a food innovation that's up there with Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. Sheer inspiration.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  17. Skittles! by Bifurcati · · Score: 3, Funny
    Aside from being a disturbing combination of knock-me-out and perk-me-up, I think that Skittlebrau has a much better chance of being successful.

    NB. I said beer was "knock-me-out" not "knock-me-up", so don't go getting any ideas. Not that the two are mutually incompatible, I guess...

    1. Re:Skittles! by squoozer · · Score: 1

      Assuming this is you I think it might be a physical impossibility to knock-you-up in the classic sense of the phrase - unless of course you are the yellow one in the picture.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    2. Re:Skittles! by Bifurcati · · Score: 1

      Nice googling, but I'm a different Joel :) Though your reasoning still applies! J.

  18. Clarification by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · · Score: 2, Informative

    If it looks like beer, foams like beer, but smells and tases like coffee, then it's this stuff. It has caffiene, but no alcohol. I'm wondering if this is just a novelty, or if there really is some place for it in the market since I think this probably would be more expensive than regular coffee. I would think if people want coffee they'd get coffee, and if they want beer they'd get beer. It just strikes me as a solution without a problem. A very clever solution, but still one without a problem.

    1. Re:Clarification by alanbs · · Score: 1

      I am not sure that when you are talking about the realm of random consumer products (especially foods) there has to be a problem to come up with a "solution". There is only so long that the same muffin can retain its appeal. Any change gets peoples' interest whether you just change the color, add some bubbles, put it on a stick ... whatever.

      It is a shame that this is not actually coffee beer. It would be the next best thing to a Red Bull/vodka. There's nothing like mixing your uppers and downers, ... Woooooo!

    2. Re:Clarification by nerdup · · Score: 1

      Is a new type of food a ever a "solution" to anything? Was the first guy to use onions in cooking solving a problem that faced his community, or just wanting to try something new?

    3. Re:Clarification by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      You know, if there's one thing I look for in a good cup of coffee, it's foam and bubbles.

      Well done Nestle. Next you'll be making beer that is murky, has no head and tastes like bitter burnt beans. Good luck to you.

    4. Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what I want to know? Who in the world first figured out you can eat artichokes.

    5. Re:Clarification by LinuxTek · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. Marketing droids will make sure to put in everyones head the fact that there was a problem before they came with this solution.

      --
      Signatures are supposed to be funny?
  19. Good by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

    Now someone please patent beers like blackberry honey wheat stout and things like pumpkin spice ale (ie "gay" beers or "beer for people who don't really like beer"). Then please sue the makers and get them off the market.

    1. Re:Good by coshx · · Score: 1

      Dude! You read and post to (well, post to at least) /. I can just imagine a hoard of 7th grade boys talking to you.

      "What's that you're reading?"
      "Slashdot"
      "Oh, is that about hockey?"
      "No, it's about computers and technology and open source."
      "dude, that's so gay"
      (they walk off chuckling)

      What did they do? Well, they took a subject that none of them like (or none would admit that they like) and since they were in the majority, they labelled it a pejorative term. Needless to say, using the word "gay" to mean "bad" is offensive to many people. I know when you use it, you just mean "bad" or "uncool" (although I could argue that in this case you mean sissy, but I won't go there) -- it's still offensive, and shows a lack of emotional maturity on your part.

      But what really gets me is that you probably know better than to make a statement like this, but figured you'd get modded as "Funny" if enough people agreed with you, even though that still doesn't make your opinion any more valid.

      I'm sure there are a lot of things out-of-the-mainstream that you enjoy, and I'm sure you take offense if someone says that it's stupid, so why come down on people who like different drinks than you do?

      So what if someone likes listening to Yanni or John Tesh? If they get enjoyment out of it, why not talk about it with them, see why they like it and open yourself up to the possibility of seeing what they see, even though you don't have to like it? This is a basic principle of human understanding and mature human interaction...

    2. Re:Good by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not in the majority here at Slashdot and I figured I'd get modded flamebait for it. Fact is, I have been drinking and brewing beer for more than 20 years and the microbrew arena has become decidedly "gay" over the years. "Oooooo, pumpkin cimmonon licorice wheat stout. Oh, and look at the name - it's called 'Lone Dog Fishbait Trapkill Island Point Stout', what a cool name. This sounds good. Should we get that, honey?" Now irregardless of the fact that I have heard this conversation play out dozens upon dozens of times between hetero couples in the beer aisle, I still consider it "gay".

  20. Drink Javahol! by LightningBolt! · · Score: 1

    But don't drink too much, or you'll javomit.

    --
    Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
  21. YRO? by kihjin · · Score: 2, Informative

    You'd think they'd at least come up with a better name for this 'drink,' instead of concatenating the two ingredients. Anyone who wants to see the patent application, the it's here [pdf]. I think I'll pass on the taste-test.

    --
    This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
  22. Drew Carey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't the beer they made on the sitcom coffee beer

  23. The final stage by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    Can I make ice cream out of it? (That should be one of My Rights Online too!)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:The final stage by GodOfCode · · Score: 1

      Can I make ice cream out of it? Sorry, you cannot. I hold the patent for that!

  24. Is it good as by Josiah_Bradley · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Is it good as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  25. Dang, my mistake by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 1

    At first I thought it said "coffee *bar*" as in energy bar. I was INTO that idea! Edible coffee? Hell yeah!

    --
    I am not left-handed, either!
    1. Re:Dang, my mistake by alanbs · · Score: 1

      I prefer to take my coffee in the form of an enema. I just became sick of those leaky lids on coffee cups. Enema was the next logical step.

    2. Re:Dang, my mistake by alanbs · · Score: 1

      I prefer to take my coffee in the form of an enema. I just became sick of those leaky lids on coffee cups. Enema was the next logical step.

      Holy freaking God. Well, aparently I am not the only one:

      http://www.ineedcoffee.com/01/01/enema/

  26. Glorious! by evenSong · · Score: 0

    We need a beer that gets us wasted but keeps us awake to bask in the glory that is drunkeness! If there ever were a God, this proves it! Hangovers, away with thee!

  27. OK, that one's done, anybody know if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the patent is still open on Crack + Horse Tranquilizer? Pretty much the same thing, that special feeling that picks you up and calms you down.

  28. Why this is a terrible idea. by handmedowns · · Score: 1

    As much as people already abuse energy drinks, mixing a caffeinated beverage with an alcoholic beverage is insane. Now with people that will migrate their addiction to a new level, I see a pandemic of people becoming dangerously dehydrated.

    --
    The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
    1. Re:Why this is a terrible idea. by handmedowns · · Score: 1

      ok so beat me with a stick.. I didn't rtfa first.. no actual alcohol.. got it.

      *still think its a bad idea though* =P

      --
      The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
    2. Re:Why this is a terrible idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely, thats why I get worried when I see my friends downing Red Bull and vodka mixes in bars. Im not saying it should be banned but ... cmon...

    3. Re:Why this is a terrible idea. by belial · · Score: 1

      Ever drink irish coffee?

    4. Re:Why this is a terrible idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just like that pandemic of dangerously dehydrated rum and coke addicts.

  29. Prior Art? by mr_zorg · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Uh, wouldn't Buzz Beer from the Drew Carey show be considered prior art?

    1. Re:Prior Art? by mr_zorg · · Score: 1

      Cut me a break. The other mention of Buzz Beer was post #13938847, a mere 54 posts before mine. At the time I hit the page and searched for other references it had not yet been posted. We must have been posting at very nearly the same time. And I get redundant for it. Boo, hiss.

  30. Prior Art by mlmitton · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Surely Drew Carey can get this patent rejected! Or, if not that, Mimi could scare them into giving it up.

    --
    "My girlfriend's got sodium laureth sulfate hair."
  31. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From a sibling post's link: "The use of Starbucks coffee as an additive is a bit gimicky..."

    Double Black is beer with coffee added. This is not a new idea. One of Kurt Vonnegut's ancestors won an award with such a beer in the late 1800's.

    This is beer made *from* coffee. It's fermented coffee. That's an entirely different thing, although its status as beer is questionable.

    1. Re:RTFA by nogginthenog · · Score: 1

      People have been using coffee as an ingredient in stouts for years!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_stout

  32. Give me Java Porter any day... by GileadGreene · · Score: 3, Informative

    Eh. This stuff has no alcohol content. No thanks! I'll take one of the Mountain Sun Brewery's Java Porters over this crap any day.

    1. Re:Give me Java Porter any day... by dascandy · · Score: 2, Funny

      No alcohol? So it's american beer?

    2. Re:Give me Java Porter any day... by Hieronymus+Howard · · Score: 1

      Java Porter!!!!!!!! Wow! Being a Londoner, I love Porter (a cross between ale and stout, formerly drunk by Covent Garden porters).

      I've had an Espresso Stout at beer festivals in Britain, which was amazingly good - 1000 times better than that mass-produced-in-chemical-factories Guinness muck.

    3. Re:Give me Java Porter any day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or perhaps even a homemade Java Stout. I'm expecting about 6.3% alcohol and made with 10 cups of good coffee per 5 gallon batch.

    4. Re:Give me Java Porter any day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kalamazoo Brewing Company makes a fantastic Bell's Java Stout

    5. Re:Give me Java Porter any day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bell's Java Stout, a recipe by Robert Skalla, was recognized as leading the wave of American Java beers. RS did a Lot of the Bell's recipes.

    6. Re:Give me Java Porter any day... by emhansen · · Score: 1

      And for all you hyper-drunken programmers (or those who wish to become hyper-drunken programmers) in the midwest, check out Lakefront Brewery's Fuel Cafe brew. Made especially for the independent cafe in Milwaukee's Riverwest neighborhood. And if beer is not your flavor check out Sparks at a store near you to satisfy all your alchohol/caffine/taurine needs!

    7. Re:Give me Java Porter any day... by GileadGreene · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I don't that Mountain Sun ships outside of Colorado. Does give you a good excuse to visit Boulder CO though :-) Their beer is certainly far better than the mass-produced-in-chemical-factories stuff.

    8. Re:Give me Java Porter any day... by farlane · · Score: 1

      Freakily enough, I am:
      1. Wearing My Mountain Sun T-shirt today
      and
      2. Brewed and roomed with the brewer who likely brought java beer to Mountain Sun

    9. Re:Give me Java Porter any day... by kakos · · Score: 1

      I was just about to post the same thing when I saw your post. I just had one last night at Southern Sun.

    10. Re:Give me Java Porter any day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not that I've tried Coffee Beer, or Beer Coffee, I see another local brew,New Glarus outranks Lakefront ;)

      Either way, I'm sure pretty much any coffee beer will taste better than Nestle's version, patented or not. just as long as they keep their ridiculous patents away from beer.

  33. Maybe it'll be tasty... by golemB · · Score: 1

    Two reasons:

    1) Cappucino has a nice froth effect, as does macchiato, and they are delicious.

    2) Ice coffee from vending machines is a staple in Japan, and it's delicious. It often has a bit of a foamy effect as well. Think soft drink, not hot beer!

  34. Ah, they avoided prior art by Tau+Zero · · Score: 1

    I know someone who's been putting espresso into some of his homebrew for years (a bottle of it keeps you awake while you're working on a bender) but keeping the alcohol out is a new twist and might be worthy of a patent.

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
  35. Emetic by baomike · · Score: 1

    That's the first thing I think of.

  36. your wish is already granted by ChipMonk · · Score: 1
    1. Re:your wish is already granted by adrenalinekick · · Score: 1

      Sam Adams Chocolate Boch Good stuff.

  37. Molson Kick Is Already Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It tastes like crap, but http://www.molsonkick.ca/product.php?LANG=en Molson Kick is caffenated beer. "*Contains 3 g of guarana / 55 mg of caffeine per 341 ml bottle **Contains 3.1 g of guarana / 57 mg of caffeine per 355 ml bottle/can"

  38. mod parent down for uncouth spelling by michaeltoe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    You over-undereducated foreigners and your old-fangled dictionaries.

  39. Oh yeah? by grumpyman · · Score: 1

    I thought my grandma patented apple pie!

  40. Buzz Beer!!! by adolfojp · · Score: 1

    I claim prior art! Drew

  41. Alcohol and coding skill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After three or four beers, whatever programming skill I have goes downhill fast (pot is much more helpful). Coffee, on the other hand, is pure employment engine oil. More on-topic, coffee + milk + vodka|rye makes a nice ghetto White Russian.

  42. Young's Double Chocolate Stout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's actually really, really good. Trader Joe's carries it, among many other places.

    http://www.youngs.co.uk/ProductPage.aspx?pageID=11 &&productID=6

    1. Re:Young's Double Chocolate Stout by nogginthenog · · Score: 1

      Not all chocolate stouts have chocolate in them (but the smooth toasted malt gives a chocolaty flavour), however Youngs does:

      Young's Double Chocolate Stout has an intriguing twist. Chocolate malt and real dark chocolate are combined with Young's award winning rich, full flavoured dark beer to craft a satisfyingly indulgent, but never overly sweet experience.

      Pale ale and crystal malt, chocolate malt, special blend of sugars, Fuggle and Goldings hops, real dark chocolate and chocolate essence.


      Mmmmmm!

  43. a couple of contentions by Kargan · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are actually a ton of coffee beers, although not in the same sense as the article suggests:

    http://www.ratebeer.com/ and search for 'coffee', 'mocha' or 'java'.

    However, these are simply Porters, Stouts, etc. that are brewed as they would normally be but with the addition of coffee, being a complimentary and intuitive adjunct since roasted malts frequently contribute a coffeeish, roasty sort of malt bitterness and flavor to many dark beers.

    In fact, this Nestle product wouldn't even seem to be eligible to be called beer since it doesn't appear to contain malt, a prime ingredient of beer along with water, hops and yeast.

    --
    Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
  44. Prior art! by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    One of my favorite breweries already does this. Dogfish head's Chicory Stout is pretty decent.

    From the URL:
    "A dark beer made with a touch of roasted chicory, organic Mexican coffee, St. John's Wort, and licorice root."

    I'd hope that the patent office would at least bother doing some research.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:Prior art! by oncebitten · · Score: 1

      Hmm, where can you get that, not a bad combination.

      It gets you drunk, wakes you up (twice with the chicory), cleans your gallstones, cures the depression that your hangover will bring, and calms you stomach.

      Well, actually, in that mix I'd probably want to take away the coffee.

  45. Come on... by fredistheking · · Score: 1

    parent is obviously trolling.

  46. looks like... by Landshark17 · · Score: 0

    ..they beat Starbucks to the punch. Probably a good thing, when you think about what a hazard it would be if everybody who went to Starbucks got beer.

    On the other hand, there's a Starbucks in the library at my college, and beer + studying = bearable studying.

    --
    This sig is false.
  47. bzzzt! wrong-o! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moderate alcohol consumption has been associated with reduced risk of heart disease - regardless of the type of alcohol. Lay off the absolutes and you'll go a lot further in persuading people to accept your views, m'kay?

  48. will they call it... by lucky130 · · Score: 1

    "Buzz Beer" or "Cap-Beer-chino?" :)

    Stay up and get drunk all over again!

  49. Not a bad patent... by Zouden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually this drink does not contain any alcohol at all. I don't think it is really beer.
    But anyway, for all those nay-saying this patent, I think it's a fairly decent one. It certainly isn't obvious!

    From TFA:
    Nestlé admits it was tricky to preserve the characteristic coffee smell in the production process. Coffee beans are roasted normally, and the chemicals containing the natural aroma collected in a cryogenic condenser, before being converted into coffee oil. The remains of the roast are then ground to powder, mixed with yeast and sucrose, and fermented for 4 hours at just below 22C. At this temperature the yeast can still metabolise but does not generate alcohol.

    The aroma oil is then mixed in with the liquid and nitrogen is injected to make it foam. Adding a touch of extra sugar also helps trap the aroma until the drink is poured, Nestlé claim.


    Now, ask yourself, is that obvious? I think this patent is perfectly acceptable.

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    1. Re:Not a bad patent... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Now, ask yourself, is that obvious? I think this patent is perfectly acceptable.

      No, IT IS A BLOODY RECEPY!

      Since when has it become acceptable to grant patents on recepies? Even the Coca Cola Company does NOT have (and should not have) a patent on cola.

      The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    2. Re:Not a bad patent... by DrEldarion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Err, isn't "recipe" just a word that means "put things together this way"? Isn't that what a huge number of patents are? In this case, you're using coffee and yeast instead of silicon and plastic. Just because you ingest it doesn't make the process any less patentable.

    3. Re:Not a bad patent... by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Now, ask yourself, is that obvious? I think this patent is perfectly acceptable.

      The patent maybe acceptable, but having read all of that would you actually drink this chemical brew? Me neither!
      Espresso stout OTOH... 8*)

    4. Re:Not a bad patent... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You set out to do something else, but you have just proven to me that the patent-idiocy is so wide-spread that it is even infecting ppl who otherwise are mostly modded positively.

      Once again: it is a recipe. Coca Cola company *never* got a patent on cola; in fact their recipe is a closely guarded company secret. Why is that? McD's *never* had a patent on a Big Mac (do have trademark though). No Michelin-starred chef *ever* patented a new recipe. Why is that?

      Patents are there only for the benefit of society. Let me repeat that: for the _benefit_ of _society_. Where is the benefit of granting patents on recipes? There is none. Normal market pressures will cause the smallest restaurants to the biggest food-multinationals to make new products *if the market demands it*. People want to taste something new, so they buy and taste it.

      There is no need whatsoever to grant someone a monopoly on a 'new' recipe. Coca Cola company did not need it, Nestle should not need it.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    5. Re:Not a bad patent... by mlush · · Score: 1
      You set out to do something else, but you have just proven to me that the patent-idiocy is so wide-spread that it is even infecting ppl who otherwise are mostly modded positively.
      Once again: it is a recipe. Coca Cola company *never* got a patent on cola; in fact their recipe is a closely guarded company secret. Why is that? McD's *never* had a patent on a Big Mac (do have trademark though). No Michelin-starred chef *ever* patented a new recipe. Why is that?

      The corn flake was patented May 31 1894 under the name Granose. Why was that?

    6. Re:Not a bad patent... by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      I never said it was right or wrong, just that it fell in line with what other patents mainly are. Patents typically are for new inventions that, in their basest form, are just putting things together in a certain manner. Why should they consider it any different if they're just working with different materials?

    7. Re:Not a bad patent... by thebdj · · Score: 4, Informative

      Coca Cola company *never* got a patent on cola; in fact their recipe is a closely guarded company secret. Why is that?

      Because patents require disclosure, the whole idea is to offer a certain time of protection for a product while at the same time forcing disclosure of it to the public. It is this disclosure that makes it possible for people to advance technologies and improve on them. Actually the Coca-Cola as a trade secret is a great example of how keeping a secret and not disclosing could technically stifle innovation in the soda industry if other companies were already so prolific in the area anyway.

      The Big Mac is a BAD example. It is a burger which would be easily rejected as a sum of its parts. Nothing holding patentable weight, but a drink like Coca-Cola is a chemical mixture and one that is actually useful. What you fail to realize is that by patenting this idea Nestle has made is possible for every company in the world to improve on their process and to improve the overall item. Without this it would be a trade secret for all eternity and no one would ever know how it was made. Since this is something that people have not done before, it is important that disclosure is made in order to allow people to actually learn the process.

      Really, you are WAY off base on this one. Go crawl back into your hole of paranoia, and moderators mod down the Parent because he is not insightful at all, just terribly misinformed.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    8. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, so that nobody could steal the secret recipe.

    9. Re:Not a bad patent... by thebdj · · Score: 2, Informative

      To go with my other patent, check out class 426 over at the USPTO. So this isn't that odd of an occurence to patent food and beverages if there is a whole class for it. Also another note from my sibling post, a trade secret provides nearly the same legal protection as a patent in many cases, so long as the company takes great effort to maintain said secret. In this case Coca-Cola would be able to sue just about anyone selling a cola product with the exact (and possibly very similar) recipe as their own since they can claim they stole a trade secret. With a patent, it would have run out by now (Coca-cola has been around more then 20 years) and there would be the possibility of hundreds of generic Coca-Cola products which could have the exact same recipe...disclosure is key to why patents are good.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    10. Re:Not a bad patent... by SeventyBang · · Score: 1



      Now we know who had their sense of humor surgically removed last week.

      It would almost be worth putting just a dash of alcohol (ala O'Doul's) and calling it Buzz Beer.

      I don't think I'd want to be on the taste test panel (with Drew et alia) for some of the other flavors they were trying until they found the coffee mix. It looked like several of them had ipecac in the brew.


    11. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a shrill for Nestle and ignorant of the Drew Carey show.

      Google on Coffee and Beer - holy shit - prior art everywhere. The examiner should have then pressed print, stamped 'Please Explain' and sent it back.

      Everything known to man has been fermented and low-alcohol'ed into drinks or beverages - even human bodies ref: Snowtown SA, Australia, although Californian purple garlic beer is probably worse. Chilli beer is hard to make - the yeast goes on strike. Same for fermented coca leaves and opium poppies, and that 5 pronged green leafy stuff. Pumping in Nitrogen - hmm Carbon dioxide is cheaper.

      For the last 20 years, Australian CSIRO has been trying to distill the oil of grapes to make instant wine/ using liquid CO2 - using cryogenic extraction is hardly new.I'm sure any brew containing nicotine, barbituates, opioids would be a sure winner. Instant tea they have, and the Japanese have near perfected artificial 'French Truffle' flavor.

      Beer anything has already been invented. Go home.

    12. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think this patent is perfectly acceptable.

      What if I don't believe in the concept of owning ideas?

    13. Re:Not a bad patent... by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      > Since when has it become acceptable to grant patents on recepies?

      Err, all patents are pretty much recipies. That's what they're for!

      If Coca Cola doesn't have a patent, then why doesn't anyone else make a drink that tastes exactly the same?

      > The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day.

      What do you know about intellectual property? You can't even spell "ridiculous" or "recipe".

    14. Re:Not a bad patent... by Reignking · · Score: 1

      At least he was the first one to point out the truth. If Coke were to file and/or receive a patent, it would have to describe what is in it. So far, no one has been able to figure out that unique Coke taste, because the formula is locked in a vault in downtown Atlanta, and not on file in DC.

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    15. Re:Not a bad patent... by thebdj · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mean to say that there Pepsi Cola, Herschi Cola, 7UP, Spa Green/Red, Tonic, Cassis, etc. could all be bought before Coca Cola existed? Or you mean to say that these other soda drinks are there because of the stiffling effect of not having a patent on Coca Cola?

      Take the big 4 soda makers. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, RC, and DPSU (Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up in case you are dense). Now none of these companies use the same formula. This is why they all have very different tasting soda products and why many people either love or hate one or the other when it comes to Coke and Pepsi in particular.

      Now let us say for a minute that no one else was quick enough to have figured out the wonderful process and ingredients that Coca-Cola uses. By having a patent you force disclosure meaning everyone would then be in the know about Coca-Cola's recipe. This means that anyone could clone Coca-Cola perfectly after the patent age was up (see the post that is a sibling to the GP).

      As it stands Coca-Cola's recipe is a trade secret and the same is probably quite true for Pepsi, RC and Dr. Pepper. This means that a "perfect" copy of these drinks is never going to be possible because so long as they protect their trade secret, anyone making a exact clone would be breaking the law in "stealing a trade secret." This means knock-off soda made by the people who provide grocery chains and Wal-Mart with their generic soda will never be perfect replicas and only close approximations.

      What this boils down to is this: no patent means competition is only driven between brands of what are technically varying products. There is no generic substitute so people who want the "real thing" have to buy it from Coke, Pepsi, etc. This means that they usually do not have to worry so much about competing with the prices of generic sodas which are often sold for as much as half the cost of the name brand. The reason they do not have to compete with these is because they are smaller in number, but also because they can never successfully replicate a brands taste without copying the recipe, which as discussed above is illegal.

      Your example of the RIM v. NTP case is not a good example. First off, you misuse the idea because it goes beyond e-mail and wireless link. Go read the claims of the patent and get back to me on that one, because unlike what the masses of patent haters on /. would like you to believe the case isn't as dumbed down as it looks.

      Now back to my original example. The reason a Big Mac has no patent is because burgers are much older then the Big Mac. The idea of adding lettuce, tomato, etc. is no big deal since it would be "well known" in the art. There was nothing new and innovative about the Big Mac, I mean even the lame sauce isn't that secret.

      I will now point you to a particular patent for a food product. In this case 4,871,554 which is a patent for fortified food products. The first claim basically covers your fortified orange juice. The patent as you will see is held by Coca-Cola, for their Minute Maid division no doubt. I once again invite you to look at class 426 and check out subclass 7 for fermentation processes. There are patents for Anheuser-Busch which covered a cholesterol free egg product (3,987,212) which is now expired.

      There is a difference between patenting a mass produced product and a simple cooking recipe. The fact is it would not be economical to get patents on simple food recipes and quite possibly impossible since there is such a wide variety in cooking. On a side note, recipes have the potential to be copyrighted if provided with the proper context. We all know how much longer a copyright lasts over a patent.

      Seriously, this is not a really contested issue among patents and you are in an obvious minority here. Why do I say that? The patent application is a WIPO/PCT patent application being sent to a wide variety of states, therefore it must be something that holds patentable weight in many countries and not just in the USA.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    16. Re:Not a bad patent... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Patents are there only for the benefit of society.

      This is patently false, ho ho.

      But seriously, when properly implemented, patents exist for the benefit of both inventors and society. Inventors benefit during the 14 years or whatever of the patent term, where they have exclusive rights. Society benefits thereafter with the rights released to the public.

    17. Re:Not a bad patent... by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      "Once again: it is a recipe."

      Actually, no it is not. From the FA, it is a technique for "fermenting" coffee. It is not just a drink in which coffee and beer are combined, as implied by the article title.

      "Coca Cola company *never* got a patent on cola; in fact their recipe is a closely guarded company secret."

      And that is generally considered a bad thing. It is generally preferred that companies be open with their processes and file for patents instead of keeping everything secret. If Coke had a revolutionary new patentable process they use while making their drink, they have effectively held back innovation surrounding that process by keeping it a secret.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    18. Re:Not a bad patent... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      What strikes me is that you do not reply to my most significant argument, and that is that there is no benefit for society to have patents on recipes. In 100 years time people will still be able to buy Coca Cola. The price is not too high, because if the CCcompany pushes the prices up too much, they lose market share to other manufacturers/sodas.

      So, Coca Cola will not be lost to society and there is enough competition in the marketplace to keep prices low. All without patents. Once again: there is no need for patents here. A patent would not have brought more benefit for society. You can quote all kinds of registered patents and international treaties, but that just shows that a *lot* of people just follow a means to an end instead of the end itself.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    19. Re:Not a bad patent... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      If Coca Cola doesn't have a patent, then why doesn't anyone else make a drink that tastes exactly the same?

      Some try, but what's the point? People like 'originals'. That's why restaurants have different menus, soda's have different tastes. etc.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    20. Re:Not a bad patent... by thebdj · · Score: 1

      Like one of the sibling to my (what is it GGGP) post said there does not only need to be a benefit to society but to the inventor. Trust me you would think differently if company X was a drug company making a life saving drug who kept their idea a "trade secret" and subsequently charged high prices for their product. Ignore the inter-cola competition, because there are plenty of coke zealots who would probably buy it if it was twice the price of pepsi and the same goes the other way.

      Like another sibling says, if they implemented some great process in making coke that is kept secret as well, then yes we could be harming society in some way because it would be a means for stifling innovation. Trade secrets = bad, patents = better. Like one of my other posts the benefits of a patent are DISCLOSURE. A patent for the coke recipe would not necessarily have prevented pepsi or anyone else from make a soda product, but it would have allowed people to make the exact same cola product that Coke is after the patent term was up...

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    21. Re:Not a bad patent... by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      Coca Cola company *never* got a patent on cola; in fact their recipe is a closely guarded company secret. Why is that?

      Because patents require disclosure.

      If you come up with a recipe, you have several choices. One is to patent it, in which case you're assured of the exclusive rights for a set period of time, but also know that after that time, anyone can make what you patented and give it away, if they want.

      Another choice is to keep the recipe secret, in which case you're assured of the exclusive rights for as long as you can keep it secret, but also know that if someone else reverse-engineers or otherwise duplicates your recipe, they can make it and give it away, if they want.

      Nestle made the former choice. Coca-Cola made the latter. That doesn't say anything about the relative merits of either choice.

      Where is the benefit of granting patents on recipes?

      The same as the benefit of granting patents on anything else.

    22. Re:Not a bad patent... by mary_will_grow · · Score: 1

      When I brew beer, I grind the barley into a mush, add water, rest at particular temperatures to get a particular profile of sugar and starch, add hops, maybe some hop aroma oil (sounding familiar?), yeast.. Let it ferment.. When it goes in the bottle, add some surcrose to kick up the yeast again and carbonate it. Different sugar + starch profiles affect flavor, smell, ability to hold a head (foam).. And sometimes, if I dont want to clean all the bottles, I stick it in a keg and inject nitrogen!!

      All this similarity, happening in my GARAGE.

      Sorry, it is a stupid patent, and unfortunately, you are acting exactly like the green patent clerk who accepted this trash, "Wow!!! I've never heard of any of this!! Sounds brilliant!!"

      --
      Why stick up for big business?
    23. Re:Not a bad patent... by xeoron · · Score: 1

      mod this person up

    24. Re:Not a bad patent... by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 0

      I am so way off base that you feel the need to resort into an attack on the person? Please keep the discussion on the *arguments* not on the *people*.

      Oh really?

      Then why would you say something like this: "The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."

      It's not OK to attack you, but it's totally OK to make an anti-American comment, even though it's completely irrelevant to your argument.

      Oh, by the way -- Nestle is a Swiss company.

      So, pardon the personal attack, but get your facts straight before you act like an asshole.

      --
      evil adrian
    25. Re:Not a bad patent... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1
      You mean to say that there Pepsi Cola, Herschi Cola, 7UP, Spa Green/Red, Tonic, Cassis, etc. could all be bought before Coca Cola existed? Or you mean to say that these other soda drinks are there because of the stiffling effect of not having a patent on Coca Cola?

      You couldn't buy Pepsi or 7-Up, but you could buy Vernor's Ginger Ale (1866) or Hire's Root Beer (1866), and even Dr Pepper (1885) was invented one year before Coca-Cola (1886). So yeah, there were quite a few different soft drinks available before Coke.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    26. Re:Not a bad patent... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      But just because someone applies for a patent doesn't mean there isn't prior art. (Apparently the patent examiners don't watch Drew Carey.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    27. Re:Not a bad patent... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      This is patently false, ho ho.

      Nice pun :-)

      patents exist for the benefit of both inventors and society

      Sorry, but you are wrong. There is this case in old England about a glass-maker who invented a certain type of glass, which was very pretty or something. It had something unique. The king (probably a wise man) thought that if this glass-maker were to die, the knowledge how to make this type of glass would be forever lost. The glass-maker had no reason whatsoever to explain how he did it, because that would reduce his unique selling point.

      So the king thought: if this man dies, the knowledge is lost. But if I were to say that he should properly document the process and that he would get an exclusive right to be the only one to make use of that process for, say, 20 years, then the glass-maker would not lose his unique selling point and the knowledge would not be lost to society! Chances are he would even be dead before the 20 years were over.

      Simple and brilliant. Patents exist to promote the knowledge and wellbeing for the whole society. That is the goal. The means to that goal is to persuade the inventor to fully disclose the invention, in return for which the inventor gets a temporary monopoly.

      Patents do not exist as a *goal* to benefit inventors. Patents exist as a *means* to benefit inventors, the goal is to get those benefits into society. when the goal is already reached (see somewhere else in a side thread: Coca Cola can still be bought in 100 years, there are enough sodas on the market, and the Coca Cola price is acceptable) there is no need for the means.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    28. Re:Not a bad patent... by fury88 · · Score: 1

      The remains of the roast are then ground to powder, mixed with yeast and sucrose, and fermented for 4 hours at just below 22C. At this temperature the yeast can still metabolise but does not generate alcohol. All these frost brewed beers like Icehouse.. We've all been FOOLED!!

    29. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without having RTFA, I would infer that the patent is on the process of this cold brewing method, or other aspects of the brewing technique, and not on the recipe per se.

    30. Re:Not a bad patent... by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cloning the exact taste of Coke wouldn't be that hard if you threw a bunch of scientists at it. The reason it isn't done, is because as soon as you put out a product (CokeRipoff), and say it tastes just like Coke, you're admitting that Coke is the best. People will cease to buy your original product, Pepsi?, and buy Coke, because you are saying Coke is the good product. Some people will buy CokeRipoff, however, they know they aren't buying the real Coke, and will only buy CokeRipoff if, it is much cheaper, and others won't know about it.

      This can be seen with the fragrance industry. The only reason they can sell a fragrance for $100 a bottle, is because people believe it's the real thing, and that they need the real thing. It could easily be produced and sold for much cheaper, which it sometimes is, but is often not bought by most, even at extreme savings, because they don't get the status of saying they are wearing a $100 fragrance.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    31. Re:Not a bad patent... by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      Well, what was actually patented, as far as I can tell, was the process for making grain dough flakes using a rest step and rollers, not the flakes themselves. If someone wanted to use the same ingredients and a different process they could make all the corn flakes they want. Well thay would have to call them something else since "Corn Flakes" was trademarked. Hmmm, maybe we could call them "Elijah's Manna".

    32. Re:Not a bad patent... by steeviant · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are a shrill for Nestle

      I think you mean shill. :D

    33. Re:Not a bad patent... by w3weasel · · Score: 1
      Actually this drink does not contain any alcohol at all
      From TFA: The remains of the roast are then ground to powder, mixed with yeast and sucrose, and fermented for 4 hours at just below 22C

      Yeast + Sucrose + Time = Alcohol. It can be largely removed during the distilling process (discarding the alcohol condensate), but removing 100% is virtually impossible, there would have to be at least a trace of alcohol left.

      --

      Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy

    34. Re:Not a bad patent... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative
      Drew Carey was proposing caffienated beer, not beer fermented from coffee beans. In any case, the fact he had the idea for an end-product doesn't mean he invented the product itself.

      "A pair of chairs where if you sit in one and press a button, you automatically are transported to the other one, in less than a second, regardless of where it is in the world."

      Did I just invent something? (Yeah, I've read similar ideas, but none involving chairs for some reason. Pretend, for the sake of argument, nobody's ever said anything about chairs before now) Was that an invention?

      Of course it wasn't. And it will not be until I can at least describe how the chairs work. And that doesn't mean "I'd use wormholes", I mean I need to document enough that someone with adequate knowledge and equipment can put the invention together, at a bare minimum. One can come up with an argument that Arthur C. Clarke did invent the geostationary satellite, because he documented that, essentially, all you need to do is put an object in a particular orbit around the Earth (that is, have it a certain height from the ground, travelling at a certain speed) using basic Newtonian physics to prove the principle; if, however, he'd just talked arbitrarily about a satellite that, somehow, floated above the same point above the Earth without describing how (leaving his readers to wonder how the hell it stayed up there), he wouldn't be described as the inventor of anything of the soprt.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    35. Re:Not a bad patent... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Because the mechanical process needed to make corn flakes was patent worthy. Corn doesn't naturally assume that shape, and it's not like they add a lot of spices or anything to it.

      In my mind, depending on the process they're using to work with the beans, this may be patent worthy. If the only way to get this beverage involves some funky machinery that they had to invent, it seems like a good patent.

      On the other hand, if someone else makes a completely different machine that makes the same drink in the end, I think that, too, would be a good patent.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    36. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frost BREWED, not frost FERMENTED.

    37. Re:Not a bad patent... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      even coca-cola itself tastes different depending on which country it was bottled in and stuff that comes on tap in cafes is different again.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    38. Re:Not a bad patent... by thebdj · · Score: 0

      No, see if you did make the coke rip off you do not necessarily have to be admitting coke is better, simply trying to sell the same product. People who like Pepsi will still buy Pepsi because they like the taste, because trust me there is a difference (I have one friend who still swears he cannot tell the difference).

      The thing is if your crack team of scientists "reverse engineer" the coke formula Coca Cola is going to throw a fit and quite likely you'll get sued back to the stone age and that is not exactly something people want to deal with. The idea is the Coke formula is a trade secret and violating that would cost you.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    39. Re:Not a bad patent... by RFC959 · · Score: 2

      The thing is if your crack team of scientists "reverse engineer" the coke formula Coca Cola is going to throw a fit and quite likely you'll get sued back to the stone age and that is not exactly something people want to deal with. The idea is the Coke formula is a trade secret and violating that would cost you.


      Please don't post in ignorance. If you reverse-engineered Coke's formula (which has already been done), the Coca-Cola corporation would have absolutely no legal grounds on which to sue you. If you stole it, that would be one thing, but if you simply figure it out, you're in the clear. They have no legal protection from duplication for their formula; it's protected by being a secret. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the University of Nebraska.
    40. Re:Not a bad patent... by mforbes · · Score: 1

      The reason it isn't done, is because as soon as you put out a product (CokeRipoff), and say it tastes just like Coke, you're admitting that Coke is the best. People will cease to buy your original product, Pepsi?, and buy Coke, because you are saying Coke is the good product.

      In the early 1980s, Coca Cola introduced New Coke, saying its taste was closer to that of their main competitor, Pepsi Cola. As we all know, New Coke sales were abysmal, and within a few months, the original formula was brought back as Coke Classic.

      If your argument were true, then Coke's advertising that New Coke tasted more like Pepsi would be an acknowledgement that Pepsi was a superior product, thus driving their legions of consumers to purchase Pepsi instead. Granted, New Coke and Pepsi only tasted alike if you had no taste buds or taste processing center in the brain, but the action your statement anticipates didn't happen. Instead of consumers being driven to Pepsi, we searched anxiously for original formula Coke, with the anxiety mounting a bit more each day until Coca Cola finally announced the end of New Coke and brought the original formula back on the market.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    41. Re:Not a bad patent... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      In the early 1980s, Coca Cola introduced New Coke, saying its taste was closer to that of their main competitor, Pepsi Cola.

      and ...then Coke's advertising that New Coke tasted more like Pepsi would be an acknowledgement that Pepsi was a superior product

      What are you talking about??

      Coke never, I repeat never compared their product to Pepsi. Of course, I remember this whole thing extremely well (and just saw a documentary on it 3 days ago). People might have thought that Coke's new taste was similar to Pepsi. Coke merely tried to capture sweeter tooth sales, but by removing their flagship product, they very nearly invoked corporate suicide. They have since learned that introducing a new soda taste is fine, as long as it has a different product name. By the way, I really did like the new coke.

    42. Re:Not a bad patent... by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      true but coffee doesn't naturally assume the shape of coffee grounds....

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    43. Re:Not a bad patent... by IAmTheDave · · Score: 1
      I never said it was right or wrong, just that it fell in line with what other patents mainly are.

      Not to mention that the "recipie" is not just flour and sugar. It deals carefully with controlling the properties of the chemical reactions of the beans and the yeast. That said, I am against this being patented.

      One recipie for chocolate chip cookies may be better than the next, but that doesn't mean that the person with the better recipie should recieve a patent on chocolate chip cookies. So in that line of thought, fermented coffee should not be something that others may not dable in.

      --
      Excuse my speling.
      Making The Bar Project
    44. Re:Not a bad patent... by Deanasc · · Score: 1
      --
      I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    45. Re:Not a bad patent... by Ihlosi · · Score: 2
      The idea is the Coke formula is a trade secret and violating that would cost you.



      No, no, no. That is absolutely NOT how a trade secret works. In fact, you cannot violate a trade secret precisely because of that second word: secret. If you come up with the formula for Coca Cola by any other means (i.e. chemical analysis, trial&error, plain dumb luck) than flat-out stealing the recipe, you're clear.


      Of course, if you work for Coca Cola, have knowledge of the recipe and sell it to competitor X, you're toast.

    46. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, a recipe can't be copyrighted. A particular, artistic conveyance of the recipe could be copyrighted. But the actual dish itself could not. Nor could you bar publication of alternately worded instructions that create the exact same dish on the grounds of copyright... the arguement that the copyrightable merit lies in the FOOD is laughable.

      No one should get a patent on recipes, or food. If someone invents a new way to process food, they should get a patent for the process. In this case, though, for instance, they should not be able to stop other coffee beers from being sold if the method used to make them does not violate the patent.

    47. Re:Not a bad patent... by thebdj · · Score: 1

      If you reverse-engineered Coke's formula (which has already been done)

      Actually if you believe the people over at Coca-Cola, none of the published recipes are correct. If you do not believe them, well no one has exactly started selling an exact duplicate of Coke en masse so who knows. Part of the problem is even if you figure out exactly what is in Coke, well you still need to find the correct order and process for turning the raw materials into Coke.

      So I might be off on the reverse engineering of a trade secret...but you are arguably off on the Coca Cola formula being successfully reverse engineered. But anyway, this is now starting to get off on a tangent...

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    48. Re:Not a bad patent... by WaterBreath · · Score: 1

      Which is why there have been patents galore on coffee grinders throughout the years. Every time someone comes up with a new way of doing it, they can apply for a patent. If coffee beans naturally formed grounds (or corn naturally formed flakes) there would be no need to create a machine to do it. (Though I think the point the OP was making was rather that the grinding or flake-ification processes would then be "obvious", and so not patent-worthy.)

    49. Re:Not a bad patent... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Eh, you can make coffee grounds with a rock, though I'm sure any number of coffee grinders have been patented. You can bet your ass that the various decaffination processes have been patented at one time or another though.

      Don't confuse a mechanical patent (good thing) with an idea patent. If someone patented the idea of coffee grounds, yea, that's ridiculous, but if someone patents a machine to MAKE coffee grounds, that's completely legitimate. That's what the patent system is supposed to be for.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    50. Re:Not a bad patent... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      If what you are saying is true, then it appears that what I said was correct, because nobody bought "new coke", because if they wanted pepsi, then they would get pepsi, if they wanted Coke, then they wouldn't buy new coke because it didn't taste like coke classic. It didn't end up driving people to pepsi, because they brought back the original coke, and people who liked coke bought that. But as a simbling posted, they never compared it to Pepsi, they just said it had a new taste, which as it happens wasn't even like coke or pepsi, and therefore, didn't sell well at all. They probably were buying pepsi at this point, unless, of course, they weren't buying any cola at all.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    51. Re:Not a bad patent... by qeveren · · Score: 1

      As it stands Coca-Cola's recipe is a trade secret and the same is probably quite true for Pepsi, RC and Dr. Pepper. This means that a "perfect" copy of these drinks is never going to be possible because so long as they protect their trade secret, anyone making a exact clone would be breaking the law in "stealing a trade secret."

      Actually, no, they wouldn't be breaking the law. The only real protection a trade secret has is being secret. Once it's out of the bag, the originator of the trade secret has no legal recourse against anyone using it. If the trade secret got out via corporate espionage or someone in the company violating an NDA, they can go after that person/group, but that's it. The secret's out, they're screwed.

      IANAL, of course. :)

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    52. Re:Not a bad patent... by TetryonX · · Score: 1

      Stealing trade secrets isn't a criminal offense.
      Stealing your countries secrets and giving it to another is a criminal offense.

      Trade secrets are just what they imply: secrets. Nothing legally binding unless you are under a non-disclosure agreement. That's why they won't let the average joe worker know all the parts of a product like Coca-Cola.

      Patents/Trademarks/Copyrights, those are all things that can be punishable by law since they are government sponsored monopolies over whatever the hell they are trying to protect while they are in effect.

      Just thought I'd point that out.

      --
      [!] No, I can't see my comments. They are not worthy of +3 moderation.
    53. Re:Not a bad patent... by NCraig · · Score: 1

      Your "most significant" argument is that patents on recipes do not serve a societal purpose? Then I ask you this:

      What exactly is a recipe? Is it a list of ingredients and instructions on how to combine them? Everything from Big Macs, to Coke, to just about every industrial product is made by following some set of instructions. Heat that; pour that into this, mix some of the other thing in.

      Do recipes consist only of instructions for the production of edible goods? Are pharmaceuticals edibles? Would you prefer that drug companies not be able to patent their products? We pay high prices for pharmaceuticals in America, but the research performed by our corporations aids people all over the world in the form of international generics and imitations. Would you prefer that this cease? I'm assuming you're a hippie and the answer is no.

      Furthermore, isn't code a sort of recipe, just another set of instructions? Stupid question, I know, because you're probably also against software patents.

      Point is: blind aversion to all things "not free" is idiotic. A brief survey of the beloved open source industry will prove how important patents are. The vast majority of open source businesses (with the exception of the "we love open source, now buy our products" companies who maintain a slew of closed products and patents) do not do well. This is because they have no method of protecting their innovations. They are service companies, the custodial workers of information technology.

      Removing society's mechanism for the protection of innovation and invention would stifle individual inventors and reduce corporate research spending. The software business would be reduced to a mean service industry. American research and industry has managed to drive a successful economy and create numerous world-changing technologies, thanks in part to our patent structure. The system sure ain't broke, and nobody wants you to fix it.

      Looks like I got a bit ahead of myself. You haven't even defined recipe...

    54. Re:Not a bad patent... by uacheesehead · · Score: 1

      recepy? recepies? rediculous? the spelling errors are killing me! not to say i don't at least somewhat agree with your points, though..

    55. Re:Not a bad patent... by drew · · Score: 1

      Coca Cola doesn't have a patent on their recipe because if they did, everyone would have been able to start making cola using the exact same recipe 17 years after the patent was issued.

      It has nothing to do with whether the formula could or could not be patented, but rather they felt that they would be better served by keeping the formula secret, as then their protections would not expire in a fixed amount of time.

      Sorry, but this is a case there the patent system is being used as intended. Rather than keep their recipe secret forever, they have released it to the public now in exchange for the government protected right to profit off of it for the next 17 years. Meanwhile, anyone can build off of their work which would not be possible if they chose to keep it a trade secret instead.

      I agree wholeheartedly that patents are being misused in a huge range of areas these days, but there are still areas where they can be valid and (dare i say) helpful.

      And what this has to do with our rights online, I'll never know...

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    56. Re:Not a bad patent... by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      A recipe as such cannot be copyrighted; only a specific version you write down can be. In other words, if you publish a recipe book and a competing publisher also creates one with the same recipes you gave, then you can only sue them if they copied them literally (and thus violated your copyright), but not if they took the *information* contained in the recipes and wrote that down themselves in their own words.

      It's a good rule of thumb to keep in mind: pure information cannot be copyrighted. Specific expressions of information can.

      Of course, IANAL, but TGWOS.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    57. Re:Not a bad patent... by Fareq · · Score: 1

      The patent is almost certainly *not* on the recipe, as recipes are not patentable.

      However, the manufacturing process very well might be patentable. That method sounds like a complex and non-obvious use of factory equipment.

    58. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're suggesting one can rightfully patent BEVERAGE RECEIPES, you show how truly evil the system has become... and I bet you're more likely to buy stock in Nestle than you'd ever be likely to open your own business (then be told you can't make this drink because that would be 'stealing' or patent infrangement).

      I hadn't realized how open the patent system really was. How about patenting chocolate chip cookies? alcoholic receipes? dance moves? Sexual positions?

      Where all business is held hostage by a few patent oligarchs, I say that is not 'business', but communism... exactly what pro-market people abhor (true pro-market people.. not the GOP monkeys at Walmart and the lobbyists for the chinese)

    59. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might not have legal grounds on which to sue you, and you might eventually be able to prove it. That wouldn't prevent them from taking you to court, accusing you of stealing their formula, and keeping the trial in progress until either you or they go broke. Guess who's going to run out of money first -- you or the Coca-Cola Company?

    60. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "without copying the recipe, which as discussed above is illegal."

      It's only illegal to produce a Coke clone if you stole the reciepe from Coke. Doing a chemical analysis on the drink and producing a clone is perfectly acceptable. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

      Read here for more info...
      http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/90781CA8- 0ECE-4E38-BF9E29F7A6DA5830/catID/1FBE2D95-203C-4D3 8-90A2A9A60C6FD618/310/119/FAQ/#D6A193A4-C763-46DB -B175A6514AEB0D71

    61. Re:Not a bad patent... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Actually, no it is not. From the FA, it is a technique for "fermenting" coffee. It is not just a drink in which coffee and beer are combined, as implied by the article title.

      The fermentation technique they're using is nothing new. The so-called "fine-tuned temperature control" is typical of the pickling fermentation process that has been used by mankind for thousands of years. You keep the stuff between 68 and 72 degrees F. Standard pickle-fermentation procedure. If you read the patent, you find that the real novelty of the process is the particular mix of yeasts and bacteria they've concoted, which gives the coffee extract a pleasant taste after fermentation. They didn't invent these microorganisms, though, they just figured out an interesting combination and proportions of these naturally occurring and commonly used little critters. In other words, it's a god damned recipe. As such, this patent is a load of crap.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    62. Re:Not a bad patent... by ewtrowbr · · Score: 1

      "The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."

      You can't blame us for this one... Nestle' is based in Lausanne, Switzerland.

    63. Re:Not a bad patent... by bentcd · · Score: 1

      Coca Cola company *never* got a patent on cola; in fact their recipe is a closely guarded company secret. Why is that?

      That is probably because a well-kept secret lasts way way longer than a patent ever will. If they took out a patent, their competitors could starting churning out exact Coca-Cola replicas 20 years later.

      It would be better for society at large if Coca-Cola did patent their recipe because if they did, then by now I could be making the stuff in my own kitchen if I were so inclined. Since they kept it a secret, however, I need to go to the store and buy it at highly inflated prices in stead.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    64. Re:Not a bad patent... by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Amazon's "1-click" patent doesn't say anything about how to implement it, it just says basically, "the customer makes one click and is automatically billed and the product is shipped."

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    65. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also another note from my sibling post, a trade secret provides nearly the same legal protection as a patent in many cases, so long as the company takes great effort to maintain said secret. In this case Coca-Cola would be able to sue just about anyone selling a cola product with the exact (and possibly very similar) recipe as their own since they can claim they stole a trade secret.

      Absolutely and incredibly false. Are you a bad lawyer, or just a pompous and misinformed lawyer wanna-be?

      Trade secrets do NOT prevent others from duplicating information, processes, or products based on independent development, reverse engineering, the use of publicly available information, or any combination thereof. Coca-Cola could only claim that someone stole their trade secret if they could allege, or at least discover, the means by which that someone gained access to Coca-Cola's proprietary and secret information. The mere existence of a duplicate product would NOT be sufficient for Coca-Cola's claims to survive a motion for summary judgment, much less make it to trial. Frankly, I would do everything in my power to get the complaint dismissed prior to discovery, since the failure to allege a means of access to the trade secret constitutes a failure to present a prima facie case of misappropriation of trade secrets, but that's just me, the LICENSED ATTORNEY.

      Lord, sometimes I really can't stand Slashdot.

    66. Re:Not a bad patent... by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      The formula for Pepsi is not a trade secret. The company went bankrupt early in the 20th century and their formula was revealed as a consequence. No idea where to find it though.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    67. Re:Not a bad patent... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      You're more right than you know.

      This is the #1 reason why pharmaceutical patents -- those things that hippies really love to hate -- are critical to not just our economic but also physical well-being. If patents weren't allowed on "recipe" type things, which is all most drugs are, then there would be a big incentive for companies to keep their formulations secret, and only let them out to people who've signed miles of NDAs or carry a small piece of remote-detonating Semtex in their brain stem or something.

      Patents may seem like a terrible idea because they give someone a monopoly for 15 or 20 years, but afterwards are free; their alternative is give companies a reason to keep their inventions and developments locked up in vaults forever, like Coca-Cola is.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    68. Re:Not a bad patent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who put the copyright, patent, and trademark rules together clearly state that these are to advance the arts and sciences. Nothing about inventors getting some sort of hand out. If the inventor doesn't make a dime it's his own fault.

    69. Re:Not a bad patent... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      You are dangerously incorrect.

      Read this and then feel free to comment: http://nsi.org/Library/Espionage/usta.htm

      If you misappropriate (steal, bribe, etc.) a trade secret, the owner of that trade secret can turn around and sue you, and win an injunction against you to prevent you from using it to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace, or force you to pay them royalties.

      A third-party who acquired the secret once the "cat was out of the bag" but was not involved in the original misappropriation would be scot-free, but you couldn't just break into the Coca-Cola vault, steal the secret recipe, and start churning out Joe's Cola and expect not to get hammered in court for it.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    70. Re:Not a bad patent... by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

      Without this it would be a trade secret for all eternity and no one would ever know how it was made

      kinda like those caramilk chocolate bars...how do they get the caramel inside the chocolate?

      --
      We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
    71. Re:Not a bad patent... by Darby · · Score: 1

      Dude, if you are an American, please stop trying to defend America.
      You're an idiot and you make the rest of us look bad when you do it.
      Sorry, that was ad hominem.
      Your demonstrated lack of ability to comprehend basic written English and the concepts that were conveyed in the posting is astounding in its idiocy. There, much better. I attacked your ideas. Now to explain.

      Then why would you say something like this: "The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."

      It's not OK to attack you, but it's totally OK to make an anti-American comment, even though it's completely irrelevant to your argument.


      There are any number of reasons he might say that. The most likely is the simple fact that it's true.
      Are you claiming that the DMCA, constantly increasing copyright terms, continually greater erosion of individual rights and liberties in the interest of a few major IP holders, and the continually increasing efforts to shove the same thing down the throats of every other country we deal with are not ridiculous?
      Obviously, you aren't saying that is not what is happening because that would demonstrate your total ignorance of recent events.

      So, his comment was clearly factual, but what's this? You're claiming that the statement was Anti-American.

      WTF?!? Damn you are a good little corporate lapdog.
      I hate to break it to you, but I am an American, and I take my responsibilities as a citizen seriously enough to pay attention to my country once in a while. The only thing the statement was anti was fascist asshats who buy congress to pass laws that fuck Americans. Do you begin to understand why decent Americans want deeply ignorant people like you to STFU?

      I hate to break it to you, but Disney, Adobe, and other major IP abusing douchebag companies do not need you leaping to their defense pulling out the old "if it's anti-fascist, it's anti-American" bullshit arguments. They will not give you a pat on the head or whatever the fuck else stupid merit badge you're hoping for, and you are doing nothing to help your country by defending those who are fucking it over.

      America needs people who are willing to think, not reactionary sycophants who will defend her attackers by pulling Orwellian doublethinking mental gymnastics which is all that you managed to do in that post.

      Congratulations.

      Oh, and:

      So, pardon the personal attack, but get your facts straight before you act like an asshole.

      Doesn't double thinking *that fucking hard* ever make your head hurt? Even a little?

    72. Re:Not a bad patent... by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      Sounds unlikely. A king could just say "Give me the formula or I'll chop your head off."

    73. Re:Not a bad patent... by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 0

      What the fuck did ANYTHING you just typed have to do with what I said?

      Corporate greed is not an American value. He just tossed his comment in there to be an asshole, kind of like you're being right now.

      You wanna meet up somewhere and discuss this with me? I'd love for you to talk to me like this in person.

      --
      evil adrian
    74. Re:Not a bad patent... by Darby · · Score: 1

      What the fuck did ANYTHING you just typed have to do with what I said?

      You leapt up to defend exactly what I was talking about.

      Corporate greed is not an American value.

      Then why do you call decrying it "anti-American"?

      That's the entire point of my post. Somebody talks bad about corporate greed, which is all that the OP did, and you jump right up whining about how it's anti-American. I am well aware that corporate greed is not an American value, hence my post. You are obviously very confused about this issue since the whole point of what you said was to defend corporate greed as being a defining American value how else could you possibly justify equating anti corporate greed with anti Americanism?!?

      Dude, seriously, you need to pull your head out of whatever orifice you have it crammed up and start using your brain.
      I mean seriously "Corporate greed is not an American value" + being anti corporate greed == being anti American?!?!
      It would be tough to come up with a more pure Orwellian doublethinking line of bullshit.

      You keep on proving my point.

      You wanna meet up somewhere and discuss this with me?

      Not so much. I can get plenty of the anti American drivel you're spouting by turning on my TV, radio or any other corporate media propaganda tool. I'm sick to death of having that same crap spouted by regular people. I probably would end up just beating your dumb ass if I had to listen to you blather on about it in person.

      I'd love for you to talk to me like this in person.

      I seriously doubt that little man. I'll meet you behind the bike racks after school.

    75. Re:Not a bad patent... by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 0

      Why? Because he wrote:

      "The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."

      It was an anti-American comment, not an anti-corporate-greed comment. If it was to be taken as anti-corporate-greed, there would be no reason for him to throw the word "American" in there.

      I don't even get why you're exploding about this. Maybe because you can't handle the fact that you're wrong? It's in black and white, moron. Read it again. Why is the word American in there? Out of nowhere?

      I probably would end up just beating your dumb ass if I had to listen to you blather on about it in person.

      OK, tough guy, I'm calling your bluff. What's your address? I'll drive right out there, I dare you to take a swing at me.

      --
      evil adrian
    76. Re:Not a bad patent... by Darby · · Score: 1

      It was an anti-American comment, not an anti-corporate-greed comment. If it was to be taken as anti-corporate-greed, there would be no reason for him to throw the word "American" in there.

      Damn, dude. You really need to learn reading comprehension.

      Let's take this very slowly.

      "The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day."

      The subject of the sentence is "IP quest"
      What the IP quest is doing is becoming more and more ridiculous.
      Are you denying this?

      "american" is an adjective modifying the subject. It is there to describe which IP quest we are talking about.

      Are you denying that America is the one doing more than anybody else to push their own laws to ridiculous extents?
      Are you denying that America is the one trying to shove our ridiculous IP laws down the throats of every country we deal with?

      I doubt you'd try to deny those basic facts, so what could your issue possibly be?

      Maybe you think that all Americans as part of our national values are just chomping at the bit for more oppressive IP laws?
      No, you already flatly denied that that is a national value.

      OK, so we have ridiculous laws passed by and for a few major corporations against our national values and when someone calls this ridiculous then according to you that is by definition anti-American.

      Does the insanity of your point stand out to you yet?
      I'm sorry, but if you do not see the fundamental contradiction in your position at this point, then seriously, your brain is broken. You need to get it looked at. Get some meds or something. If you already are on them, then talk to your shrink about upping your dosage.
      See, when you are capable of believing two contradictory things at the same time, that is a sure sign that there is something seriously wrong with you.

      I don't even get why you're exploding about this.

      Let's see... Somebody made an obvious statement of fact which was anti ridiculous IP laws. Rather than adding anything to the discussion or just keeping your mouth shut, you felt it necessary to leap up and defend the people pushing these fucked up laws as being good Americans and anybody who disagrees with them as anti-American.
      So you flat out called every single citizen of this country who actually gives a shit about it anti-American.

      I am sick to death of hearing that idiotic shit spouted from every major media organization. I am absofuckinglutely sick of hearing it bleated out by cowards like yourself who defend the people who are betraying this country against those with the balls to stand up for it.

      So unless you can address the fundamental contradiction inherent in your position, I will continue to treat you in the manner you have shown yourself to deserve. As an idiotic, cowardly, petulant little child.

      OK, tough guy, I'm calling your bluff. What's your address? I'll drive right out there, I dare you to take a swing at me.

      Sorry, but even though I would get a great deal of satisfaction out of it you are clearly incapable of actually learning anything from it. You can't string 2 sentences together without creating a contradiction which you refuse to recognize even when your nose is rubbed in it. So since the only possible benefit is some instant gratification, and I have no interest in going to prison over your dumb, ignorant ass, I'll have to pass on that one.

    77. Re:Not a bad patent... by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but even though I would get a great deal of satisfaction out of it you are clearly incapable of actually learning anything from it. You can't string 2 sentences together without creating a contradiction which you refuse to recognize even when your nose is rubbed in it. So since the only possible benefit is some instant gratification, and I have no interest in going to prison over your dumb, ignorant ass, I'll have to pass on that one.

      I knew that skipping your post to get to the last paragraph would be totally worth it! Not only do you back down from your empty threat when I call you on it, but then you try to use as many "big words" as possible as some sort of redemption. Priceless.

      Have fun hiding behind your computer for the rest of your life!

      --
      evil adrian
  50. Java? by Private+Taco · · Score: 0

    I code Java while on acid.

    --
    If I could, I'd destroy you all.
  51. You sound like the mom from the Peanuts movies. by modecx · · Score: 1

    You're just miffed that they don't brew coffee over there at SCO. It's understandable, really. I'd be cranky too! Plus if it weren't for the occasional game of five against one, I'd be barking mad, or at least worse than I usually am, at any rate. And that explains a lot of things, I think. Oh! You're gonna bitch about that, too I can hear it now--Something about how Carnal Tunnel Syndrome is a life long debilitating disease, and how it rots the brain, and causes arthritis and manus capillus! Well, you can take that thought, fold it until it's all sharp corners and shove it up your ass! And we'd better not catch you enjoying that.

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  52. NO, officer... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's not BEER you smell on my breath, it's coffee. COFFEE! Hey, put those damn handcuffs away!

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  53. This isn't new by Inaffect · · Score: 1

    Goblins, trolls, orcs, demons, lizardmen, ogres, and werewolves have been drinking this stuff for years.

  54. Drug Dealers by sugarmotor · · Score: 1

    Drugs are just very lucrative. The question is : why not ten years ago, why not twenty ? That's a deep puzzle to me.

    Stephan

    --
    http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
  55. Prior art? by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 73,300 for "coffee beer". (0.20 seconds)

    Does anyone think they're the first to think of combining the two most addictive beverages in the world?

    I'm sure the patent is much more specific than just mixing the two, enough to make it unique, but the general idea is nothing new. I really didn't know you could patent food, but I guess where there's a will there's a way.

  56. this may be really paranoid, but... by valdean · · Score: 1
    Why is this story filed under the Slashdot section Your Rights Online? I fail to see how fermented coffee affects my online freedoms.

    Unless... maybe the editors know something we don't.

    Maybe this beer reads RFID. Perhaps it scans our passports. Maybe it records our fingerprints with its innocent, refreshing-looking condensation and uploads them to the NSA. Maybe the DRM on this beer is a trap for people drinking it and listening to pirated mp3s. Perhaps it is chemically manipulated to induce truthful confessions from college students regarding their Bittorrent habits.

    You guys may smell coffee. I smell a rat.

    1. Re:this may be really paranoid, but... by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Its not about the coffee. Its about the patent.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  57. Um.... by davmoo · · Score: 1

    (Waves hand) Question...

    How the fuck is this "your rights online"?

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:Um.... by soikoban · · Score: 1

      My bet is on the phrase 'x patents y'.

    2. Re:Um.... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Update: Romans claim prior art!

  58. Foamy by yintercept · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What is the point of this product?

    My guess is that the selling point of the product is that it is a packaged foamy drink. It is easy to market foamy. Coffee shops do a good job selling foaminess. The other bottled caffiene drinks are all flat. So, something that foams might stand out.

    1. Re:Foamy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you, Jerry Seinfeld?

    2. Re:Foamy by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Must be. Same kind of "obvious" statements that have no grounding in reality.
      Because of course, all sodas are flat. And non-caffeinated. Or is he talking about bottled coffee drinks? Then, I could agree.
      Either way, I'm gonna give this stuff a go. A bit fizzy, fermented to get some nice taste to it. Should be interesting.

  59. Open Souce Beer by Ichiban-IT · · Score: 1

    What about the open source beer ? http://www.voresoel.dk/main.php?id=70 Made by a group of students at the IT-University in Copenhagen. It seems that they just copyed that idea.

  60. OSQ by Mr_Icon · · Score: 1

    Homer: Uh, yeah. I need something that will keep me awake,
            alert, and reckless all night long.
    Clerk: Well, Congress is racing back to Washington to outlaw
            these. [puts a bottle of pills on the counter]
    Homer: [takes bottle] Sold!
            [downs most of the pills on the spot]
    Clerk: Hey, you can't take that many pep pills at once.
    Homer: No problem, I'll balance it out with a bottle of sleeping
            pills. [takes another generous helping of pills]
    -- "Maximum Homerdrive"

    --
    If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
    1. Re:OSQ by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 1

      Beer with no alcohol? Faux beer? Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me!

  61. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought you couldn't patent drinks. The simpsons taught me so. =(

  62. Coffee Wine by ihuntrocks · · Score: 1

    I've been fermenting "coffee wine" at home here for the last 4 weeks. It should be ready by the 17th of this month and I am eager to try it. Nothing like caffinated alcohol.

    --
    Randimal: AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG
  63. Its Non Alcoholic - 0.2% Alcohol. by SirDrinksAlot · · Score: 1

    "The final product contains about 0.2% alcohol. Non-alcoholic fermented coffee beverages could be obtained if the process employs aeration during thefermentation with the yeast." Which they wont do because that'll kill the aeroma..

    Ok so its non-alcoholic enough for sale in Canada as a Non Alcoholic Beverage.

    Remindes me of Beavis And Butthead when they buy Non Alcoholic Beer.

    1. Re:Its Non Alcoholic - 0.2% Alcohol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, coming from SirDrinksAlot, I think we can trust this information. Also, I should RTFA.

  64. process, not idea... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    so if you can come up with another way to make it they can swivel... ;)

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  65. Nestle owns all European chocolate by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nestle basically bought all of the chocolate manufacturing in Europe.

    Take a look at your kitkat some time - licensed from Nestle.

    I was at a restaurant at 10,000ft in the alps. Nestle hot chocolate, of course.

    All of Nestle's chocolate products are made with powdered milk, except for Callier - the only Nestle chocolate made with fresh milk. Have fun getting it in the states.

    Probably the only chocolatier that Nestle doesn't own is Caotina - damn hard to get that stuff in the states too.

    My point is, Nestle has long been your chocolate overlord - the Microsoft or Google of chocolate, especially European chocolate.

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
    1. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

      Brewed frothy coffee, what a concept, no coffee shop in the world could have possibly invented that on their own. This is like Microsoft patenting the "double click". Then why don't the Italians then patent pizza and the Mexicans patent tacos and diarrhea!

    2. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I don't know if you're referring to all European chocolate available in the US or all European chocolate in general. In the latter case it's not really true. Here in The Netherlands there are some major independent chocolate manufacturers that are either independent or owned by a non-Nestle multinational. Examples: Verkade, Droste, De Ruyter.

    3. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are plenty of chocolate-makers in Europe, besides Nestle. Being in Finland, the two dominant companies here are Cloetta/Fazer and Kraft Foods (which owns such brands as Marabou and O'boy, as far as chocolate is concerned). There ARE products by Nestle available here (Kitkat for example), but they are not the dominant player. Nestle might be the biggest one overall, but they do not dominate the field, IMO.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    4. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by norc · · Score: 1

      With the difference that Microsoft did NOT invent the "double click", because this is an "Apple" invention.

    5. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by jonwil · · Score: 5, Informative

      What about Cadbury and Mars (who make mars, m&m, snickers and other things I think). Both are (at least in australia) quite large.

    6. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent up - Cadburys and Mars are just as big, Cadburys Schweps also I believe own the Coca Cola franchise in Europe.
      Nestle only seems big because it bought out British Rowntrees in the late 80's early 90's, which made Fruit Pastels, Kitkats, Smarties, Polos etc...

    7. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by BarryNorton · · Score: 1
      Take a look at your kitkat some time - licensed from Nestle
      Actually, Kit Kat was the invention of Rowntrees in York and only bought out by Nestle years after being established around the world...
    8. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know your European chocolate.

      Kraft owns a heck of a lot more than Nestlé. And apart from that, a lot of the most notable chocolatiers (such as the Belgian Neuhaus) aren't owned by any foreign company.

    9. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Norway KitKats and Nestle chocolates are almost missing in stores, we have Freia, Nidar and Minde Sjokolade. The latter being the best.

    10. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by Marcuzio · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nestle basically bought all of the chocolate manufacturing in Europe..
      What about Lindt? I don't think is Nestle owned and there are many "little" chocolate prodoucers in Europe that make some delicious product. Here in italy we have NOVI, that's quite good but if you are searching something particular and you are in tuscany try the one from slitti
    11. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, they haven't got their hands on Green and Black's yet. Green and Black's is good stuff; real chocolate to savour, not candy for kiddies.

      -Stephen

    12. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by rishistar · · Score: 1

      My point is, Nestle has long been your chocolate overlord - the Microsoft or Google of chocolate, especially European chocolate.

      Well Microsoft are much better than Nestle. At least Bill Gates gives money to aid malaria research rather than killing and impeding the development children for profit through increased sales of powdered milk.

      --
      Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
    13. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look in to the history of chocolate. It was Mr. Nestle himself that invented powdered milk. That's where the name - Nestle - came from. Of fucking course it's made with powdered milk. The whole point of using powdered milk is that it allows you to control the moisture content more closely - creating a more even product. Using fresh milk - and calling it quality as a result - is a pure marketing gimmick.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    14. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      These operate in the UK, along with people like Terry's, Bendicks, Green and Blacks. There's no monopoly.

    15. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      lindt isn't small at all. and they make imho the best european chocolate

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    16. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Green and Blacks now owned by Cadbury Schweppes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4543583.stm

      Terry's of York now owned by Kraft Foods International http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,11 95607,00.html

      Bendicks Of Mayfair are still independant .....

    17. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by scherbi · · Score: 1, Interesting

      All this chocolate you speak of is crap. Real, Good, Chocolate is readily available to anybody reading this. You can get El Ray, Scharffen Berger, Chocovic, and many other fine chocolates online. chocosphere.com, for example, has a great selection of *real* chocolate.

      Also, my local health food store has begun to cary a decent selection of interesting chocolate from small regional manufacturers.

      Yes, I'm a chocolate snob. Deal with it.

    18. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by jonwil · · Score: 1

      WTF? Chocolate in a health food store? I thought chocolate was unhealthy...

    19. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by scherbi · · Score: 1

      They (Mrs. Green's) carry beer too...

      Chocolate has many of the same health benefits as red wine, so it's not entirely unhealthy. And don't discount it's psychological effects either...

    20. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      Hershey's appears to be a public company, so i think that's another big, independent player in chocolate sales

    21. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent is entirely correct and was wrongly modded as flamebait. The "chocolates" from the big corps are turds.

    22. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by taursir · · Score: 1

      And in Finland, where coffee and beer are staples, this'll fly off the shelf.

    23. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Yes, but do those other Chocolatiers kill babies?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    24. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      No, that's not true. Outside of the fact that many major brands are owned by Kraft Foods (Milka and Côte d'Or come to my mind right now), there's also lots of independent manufacturers. Sure, you might not be able to get a bar of Rausch or Leysieffer or so from the candy vending machine etc., but to say that they don't exist is pretty silly and/or naive.

      Theobroma-Cacao has a good list of many chocolate brands world-wide (in German); you'll find lots in there that aren't owned by any big player.

      As for getting chocolate in the USA, it's pretty easy actually - just order it online. :) Check Google, and you'll find lots of websites where you can order it.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    25. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      Ideed! You're correct again, Barry.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    26. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by deetsay · · Score: 1

      But Nestlé pwnz Valio ice cream :-(

      --
      "The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand", or so I have read.
    27. Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      we are talking about chocolate, not ice-cream. If you want non-Nestle ice-cream, buy Ingman.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  66. The best part of waaaaking up... by hobotron · · Score: 1


    Is getting drunk?

    --
    There is truth in humor.
  67. Speedway Stout - top rated beer w/ coffee by justrob · · Score: 1

    This stout has coffee added to it and it is fantastic. Its rated #14 in the top 100 beers of the world at Beer Advocate If you live in Southern California its fairly easy to find in high-end grocery stores and better liquor stores.

  68. Damn.. by spriteboy · · Score: 1

    Why the hell are they calling it Coffee beer if it doesnt have alcohol in it, it should be called frothy coffe or something similar......beer with caffeine....now that would be something worth a patent ;)..

  69. Re:Nestle owns... alot more than just that... by elpostino · · Score: 1

    I worked for them for many years and remember when their "water monopoly" got broken up by the French govt because they owned Perrier, Vital, and Evian. BTW: I really like their Perugina chocolates that you can find more and more frequently here in the United States. more choco monopoly stuff: http://www.nestleeuropeanchocolate.com/

  70. How is this new ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and patentable?
    Here, in Poland (and i'm sure not only here) we have Karmi and Cafe Karmi - thats a "non-alcocholic" (yeah right) beer but STILL its cafe+beer

  71. a stimulant and a depressant? by nilbog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who invented this? Don't they just cancel eachother out? It's like the simpsons where homer takes sleeping pills and energy pills.

    --
    or else!
  72. What the (expletive deleted)...?! by mister_llah · · Score: 1

    I know Coffee Beer existed before because I drank some more than 10 years ago.

    So I decided to pop a search out there:
    http://www.californiawineandfood.com/links/coffeeb eerandotherbeverages.html

    Also from another site analysing beers: Mountain Sun's coffee beer also has more of a coffee flavor. "I love the Mountain Sun Java, but it has a lot more coffee character," Parker said. "That's the beauty of it. Even in something as esoteric as a coffee beer you can have a range of choices. That's what makes brewing great."

    ===

    Can you patent something that has been around for awhile, just because it hasn't been patented yet? I thought you can only patent your own ideas?

    WTF?

    --
    MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
    http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
  73. I thought you couldn't patent recipes! by mbius · · Score: 1

    The patent in TFA calls the invention "a coffee beverage" and "a process for making such products." What gives?

    --
    you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
    Prime UID Club
  74. Cellphone chaperone by threaded · · Score: 1

    In the same article they mention a "Cellphone chaperone", interestingly mine http://www.meta-sat.com/ and several other built-in car-phones can do exactly that. From certain numbers previously registered with the phone you can call the car and listen in to what is happening. It is used by numerous delivery companies. They go further and can upgrade the phones software remotely too.

    There was even a demonstration of such a system on British TV at least 10 years ago being used by the police in "sting" operations against car thieves.

    How do they get a patent for such a thing when there is just so much prior art?

  75. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    beer without alcohol is not real b33r O.oU

  76. How to deride? by philovivero · · Score: 1
    with "fruity and/or floral notes due to the fermentation of the coffee aroma."
    Ah, yes. The fruity and/or floral notes. It has a slightly musky scent wafting on the pallette and... wait. We're talking about a cross between beer and Red Bull here. WTF is it with the high-brow wine vocabulary?! Ah, well. We brought it back down to the college level at the end when we proposed that it was caused by an aroma that ferments.

    Pass me some of that weed, dude! My aroma is fermenting!
  77. Applied for != Patented by venomkid · · Score: 1

    ...or didn't you know that, submitter?

    pfft.

    --
    vk.
  78. thank you by wzzzzrd · · Score: 1

    i was out last night, entering the office this morning with a good hangover, and what do i have to read? coffe beer? only my superior fast alt-tab-reflex prevented me from throwing up all over my keyboard. lesson learned: hangover + slashdot = not good.

    --
    On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
  79. Kahlua by Kelson · · Score: 1

    Forget coffee beer -- I'm sticking with Kahlua (a coffee liqueur). It's versatile. You can drink it, you can mix it with other forms of alcohol to create mixed drinks, you can add chocolate and ice cream to make a mudslide, you can put it in a milkshake, you can add it to brownies, you can make tiramisu...

    Heck, you can put Kahlua in coffee!

    I don't see being able to do any of that with a beer made from coffee. Not if I want the result to be drinkable, anyway.

  80. I knew they were working on it! by Muhammar · · Score: 2, Funny

    and I could have scooped them - some years ago, I noticed that the stale instant Nestle tastes incredibly lot like a stale weak beer. (I thought it was nice that they did not use the usual burnt motoroil flavor like Folgers'). So they were just passing a beta version of their birra Coffiest!

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  81. Prior Art! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say we have prior art - we have had this mug of what used to be coffee in our tea kitchen at work for a very long time now...

  82. They can patent the process, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't patent coffee beer or even necessarily the recipe. Recipes aren't patented, they're copyrighted. And patenting "coffee beer" would be like patenting any regular item. I could claim I made a new type of bread, so I'm patenting bread. So all you sandwich-lovers out there, you owe me my royalty, damnit!

    My personal favorite coffee beer comes from Six Rivers Brewery in McKinleyville, CA. They don't list it on their menu, because they don't always brew it. But when they do, it's something special. Instead of carbonating it, they use hydrogen to hydrogenate (sp?) it.
    www.sixriversbrewery.com

  83. This is not new! by ctime · · Score: 1

    Hmm..I liked this better when it was called Baileys Irish Cream & Coffee.

  84. popoz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PROZPZ 2 tha wattem cr00 fo sho niggaz 4 lyf WATTEM FFFFFFFRESH

  85. Sorry to burst your bubble but this matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nestlé union leader murdered

    Leader of striking workers of food and beverage giant Nestlé gunned down in Philippines.

    Saturday September 24 2005 - CALAMBA CITY -- THE LEADER OF STRIKING WORKERS of food and beverage giant Nestlé Philippines was gunned down in front of a plastic factory in Barangay Paciano Rizal this city late Thursday afternoon.

    Saturday September 24 2005

    CALAMBA CITY -- THE LEADER OF STRIKING WORKERS of food and beverage giant Nestlé Philippines was gunned down in front of a plastic factory in Barangay Paciano Rizal this city late Thursday afternoon.

    The death of Diosdado Fortuna, 50, was quickly condemned by leftist labor groups, with one pinning the blame on Ms Arroyo as the killing came after the President talked tough against her political opponents.

    "We are certain that the killing is politically motivated. Arroyo's hands are bloodied once more ...," said Elmer Labog, national chair of the Kilusang Mayo Uno.

    "We will seek justice for his death and will send the evil perpetrators of this murder to hell where they belong," he said.

    Fortuna died of two gunshot wounds in the back as doctors tried to save his life at the Calamba Doctors' Hospital.

    Fortuna heads the 660-strong Union of Filipino Employees-Drug and Food Alliance (UFE-DFA), the coalition of employees of the Nestlé factory in Cabuyao, Laguna.

    The group has been on strike since Jan. 14, 2002 after talks for a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with management on retirement benefits bogged down.

    Pedro Dy-Liacco Jr., director for communications of Nestlé, said in a statement that the Nestlé management was shocked over the killing of Fortuna.

    "We condemn this act of violence and extend our sympathies to Fort's family and relatives. We are prepared to extend help to his family and to the Calamba police for a swift resolution of its investigation."

    "He doesn't deserve to die like this. He did nothing wrong but to fight for what is due the lowly workers like him. What an injustice," his wife Luz said.

    Luz quickly blamed Nestlé management for the killing.

    "My husband has no other enemy except Nestlé management."

    Supt. Nestor de la Cueva, deputy chief of the Calamba police, said Fortuna was on his way home in his motorcycle from the Nestlé picket line when gunmen shot him twice about 5:20 p.m.

    A passing motorist stopped by and brought Fortuna to the hospital where he died.

    Police said the gunmen wore helmets and could not be easily identified.

    After news of his death spread, hundreds of people trooped to the Nestlé factory to denounce the killing.

    Fortuna's wife said her husband's last text message to her, sent just 30 minutes before he was gunned down, was about their two-year-old grandson, who was suffering from diarrhea.

    "He would tell me to remember the face of his would-be assassin. To remember the vehicle his attackers will use," she said. "It hurts me more to know that I wasn't there when he was killed. How can I help him get justice?"

    Fortuna became president of the Nestlé union when its former leader, Meliton Roxas, was killed in front of the Nestlé plant in 1988. Marlon Ramos with Delfin Mallari Jr., PDI Southern Luzon Bureau

    The workers at this Nestlé factory in the Philippines were on strike for a long time, Nestlé must have offered disgusting wage conditions for a strike to last that long. Now the 2 most recent workers union leaders are dead.

    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/325596.html

  86. Papazian by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

    Charlie Papazian in the 'Bible' of homebrew talks about the use of coffee in brewing beer, and I believe this stands since the first edition in 1984.

    1. Re:Papazian by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      That is totally a literary masterpiece.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  87. That's just like... by h_benderson · · Score: 1

    ...taking tranquilizers and sleeping pills at the same time. Highly dangerous to your health.

    And yes, this also reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer loses the Steak Eating Contest.

  88. .. "Still Better than Cadbury!" by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
    You're right about Nestle, but, well, at least it's not Cadbury. The "venerable" british chocolatier sells chocolate flavoured wax aggregate, occasionally with crushed economy nut sweepings. It's absolute rubbish. Nestle, while a giant corporation who basically tries to sell you less for more, at least has legitimate researchers or whatever making a kit-kat or whatever taste reasonable. Cadbury is just plain shite.

    I dont eat much chocolate, but when I am over in the USA, I make sure that I get some hersheys products. They are quite tasty. Kisses and Peanut Butter cups, especially.

    1. Re:.. "Still Better than Cadbury!" by D-Cypell · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I never really cared for US chocolate (Hershey and the like) and I have always described them as 'waxy'. I have to say I am not a massive fan of Cadburys either. I am not entirely sure who makes Galaxy chocolate but it's far and away the best I have ever tasted and that includes all the fancy Belgium and German stuff.

    2. Re:.. "Still Better than Cadbury!" by stx23 · · Score: 1

      It's made, perhaps unsurprisingly, by the Mars Corporation.

      http://www.galaxychocolate.com/

    3. Re:.. "Still Better than Cadbury!" by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I don't know about anybody else here, but when I buy just plain chocolate, I like to get Dove chocolates. Both the milk chocolate & dark are really smooth.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  89. Holy crap, I need a tinfoil hat!!! by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

    I was thinking, shortly after I first heard about that Open Source Gurana-enhanced beer, that it would be really funny to mess with the idea and highlight the brokenness of the patent system by taking out a patent on "Enhancement of Beer by Brewing With Naturally Occuring Stimulants"

    Now I really, _really_ wish I'd gone through with an application!!

    --
    455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  90. Looks like it's time to submit my patents... by andrewski · · Score: 0

    Method for creating lower localized air pressure with an aim of supplying oxygen to a circulatory system. (breathing)

    Method for creating duplicate cells by dividing cell walls, organelles, and replicating DNA strands. (cell division)

    Method for firing chemical and electrical impulses supporting nervous activity in large nerve clusters. (thinking)

    Method for converting photons into ATP by means of chemical reaction in chloroplast organelles. (photosynthesis)

    Method for creating constantly changing levels in large bodies of water by inducing said level changes through action of a third party. (tides)

    Method for obtaining drinkable liquids through applying force to an object while object is in a receptacle, and allowing said liquid to drain into a second container. (making juice)

    Method for applying repeated physical stimulation to an object for entertainment purposes. (jerking off)

    I have hundreds of these. Would anybody like to lend me the money to apply for patents for these? I'll give you 5% of the licensing fees!

  91. Coffe is a slow poison by sita · · Score: 1

    Caffeine has been around for centuries and again, within moderation, it isn't going to kill you or make you stupid.

    "Coffe is a slow poison. It has to be. I have drunk eight cups a day for fifty years, and I am still not dead." -- Voltaire

  92. This may have been done already... by kerashi · · Score: 1

    A google search for coffee beer turned this up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4073075.stm Seems somebody's made coffee beer alreadly

  93. bad title by frilledren · · Score: 1

    "Nestle Patents Coffee Beer"
    Applying for a patent is not the same as patenting- trust me. Remember all that crap lying around that is completely unremarkable, yet has "pat. pend." embossed on the side?
    However it is typically true that, patent application+$40k in lawyer fees=patent=PROFIT!

  94. Tomacco anyone? by sapgau · · Score: 1

    Funny, still no reference of those tomatoes crossed with tobacco...
    Brought to you by Homer.

    /Didn't RTFA

  95. NO ALCOHOL??? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Then what is it good for???

    Is there anyome there who's able to do this *above* 22C? *wishesforit*

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  96. What about... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    ...Kraft Foods?

    They own suchard (known for their good hot chocolate) and Cote d'Or (best "normal customer chocolate" i know. especialle with nuts).

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  97. All I can think of... by norpan · · Score: 1

    ...is the Nutri-Matic machine.

    --
    Opinions expressed above are mine, and not my employees'.
  98. Prior Act by bokal · · Score: 1

    I dont no if it is obvious or not but it has plenty of prior act eg.: Americas Triple Black Coffee Stout

  99. DEAD BABIES by ajs318 · · Score: 1

    Does it still have dead babies in it?

    The Nestlé company sells powdered baby milk in the third world, using advertising methods that would be illegal in the West to suggest that it is "better" for babies than the natural milk that they have been drinking from their mothers' own breasts for years without ill effect. The upshot of this is twofold. Mothers who don't know better are left out-of-pocket buying an unnecessary product, and babies are exposed to health hazards from the unclean water {not to mention they don't get the massive immune system boost that comes from drinking breast milk}.

    It isn't strictly Nestlé's fault that the local drinking water is so polluted, but it's still downright irresponsible of them to market their products in this way.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  100. Already have Guinness by stuntpope · · Score: 1

    I used to think Guinness would make a good beer float (as in, ice cream float) but never got around to trying it. I should patent it!

  101. Coffee and beer have been mixed forever by asink · · Score: 2, Funny

    Their exact process for doing so may be somewhat unique, but coffee beer has been around for a long time, the most popular type being the coffee porter
    I would say something about them not being able to stand up in court, but the caffeine helps with that.

    --
    "Hex, Bugs, and Rockn'Roll"
  102. Hershey's is poo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like Cadbury's that much, but Hershey's isn't for human consumption. I have difficulty taking your post seriously.

  103. Different drinks by nwbvt · · Score: 1

    His was a beer with coffee flavoring if I remember the show correctly. This is coffee made in a similar fashion as beer. They are entirely different.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  104. Prior Art by curtvdh · · Score: 1

    Heck, I've been pouring Kahlua into my coffee at work every morning since...

    Why are you all looking at me like that?

  105. Strange yeast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The remains of the roast are then ground to powder, mixed with yeast and sucrose, and fermented for 4 hours at just below 22C. At this temperature the yeast can still metabolise but does not generate alcohol.

    That must be one strange yeast they use here. Top-fermenting ale yeasts are quite happy at those temperatures, and even a bottom fermenting lager yest will produce alcohol at those overly warm temperatures.

    With a low enough concentration of yeast, 4 hours may be too short a time to produce anything than more yeast, using so little yeast would not have much effect on anything.

    Most likely the secret is in extracting and treating the coffee oils, and this whole fermentation is just a smoke screen. I bet a good clone could be made without any fermentation at all, just a bit of dead yeast cells for that special aroma...

    -H

  106. MOD NESTLE DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... And mod the parent up! More information

    1. Re:MOD NESTLE DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It isn't strictly Nestlé's fault that the local drinking water is so polluted, but it's still downright irresponsible of them to market their products in this way.
      I am quite sure that they will continue to go on doing so, regardless of whether or not I eat a Kit kat.
  107. Darn it by indytx · · Score: 1
    From TFA:

    At this temperature the yeast can still metabolise but does not generate alcohol.

    I thought I finally found something to get me through another day at work.

    --
    Make love, not reality television.
  108. Coffee Beer Already Exists by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    Dark Lord Imperial Stout comes directly to mind.

    Adding coffee to beer is nothing new. Beer involves grain. This is something altogether different.

    Mead is fermented honey. Beer is fermented grains (with other stuff added like fruit, honey or coffee). Wine is fermented grapes/fruit.

    Fermented coffee would be?

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  109. Why would you be programming for ten hours? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    You should never be coding for ten hours. Anybody working on serious software would never pull a stunt like that. Like you said, you start making mistakes. So it's better just to stop at eight hours, and start fresh the next day. Chances are you'll actually be in a better position to hit your deadline, because you're not stuck tracking down and fixing all the errors you made while drugged.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  110. Buzz Beer! by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    Finally, life imitates art - just like "Buzz Beer" on the Drew Carey Show. Their motto - "Stay up and get drunk all over again!"

  111. Maybe the bad chocolate by caveat · · Score: 1

    Nestlé may own all European crap chocolatiers, but not the good stuff. Stop by Chocosphere and browse the selections. [snobby chef]Amedi and Valrhona are widely considered the world's finest brands and most certainly are _not_ owned by Nestlé; Callebaut isn't anything to sniffle at, either. I can't comment on anything else, those are the only three brands I've tried[/snobby chef]

    Seriously though, if you're a chocolate fan, you need to try this stuff. I myself prefer the Valrhona Jivara milk chocolate, or the Amedi Porcelana if I'm in the mood for darck chocolate. Expensive, yes, but some things are worth paying for.

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  112. Better get back to law school... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    Since when can recipes be patented?! I'm surprised Nestle hasn't patented the chocolate-chip cookie.

    "A process by which cookie dough and chips of chocolate are combined and heated to extreme temperatures to modify the ingredients into a tasty treat we all love. Best served with milk. By the way, serving cookies with milk violates our earlier patent, a process and method to quench thirst through bovine means after cookie ingestion."

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  113. Why not just drink coffee? by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    "The beverage is made in a similar way to beer, but fine-tuned temperature control stops the formation of ethyl alcohol. So the new drink could go down well with people who want a long tall pick-me-up while driving."

    If I want a long tall pick me up while driving, I'll get my wife to run in to Dunkin' Donuts.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  114. Health benefits of ethanol by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    One to two servings of ethanol per day demonstratively lower risk for heart disease. Similar studies suggest the same is true for caffeine. The amount caffeine present in two to three cups of coffee, when taken every day, improves cardiovascular health. Caffeine and ethanol, like most chemicals, are good when taken in the appropriate dose and harmful when abused.

  115. Re: Mission Critical Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm willing to bet that most of us who work as programmers and are reading this are paid for writing code along the lines of "Permutation 67 of the same sales report we wrote Permutations 63 and 64 of last month," rather than baby incubator climate control systems.

    And before anyone asks where they are, the guy in the next cube wrote Permutations 65 and 66.

  116. Only About five or Six Centuries of Prior Art by ausoleil · · Score: 1
    When I saw this, I literally laughed out loud.

    Artisanal brewers have been using coffee in beer for the longest time...not that the patent office will ever notice that, given their sordid track record of late.

    See: Wolf Tongue Brewery

    Espresso Stout

    Among others.

    Some simple brewing facts for you: yeast metabolizes sugars, and gives off alcohol and CO2 as their by product. Coffee, in and of itself, has no sugars that are fermentable. Therefore, Nestle will have to add sugar. That's where they run into prior art: at that point, coffee is another adjunct to the brew. Since this has been done more or less since coffee was introduced to the Western hemisphere, their patent had better be extremely specific in order to withstand scrutiny. They certainly will not be able to patent the whole idea of "coffee beer" or for that matter, "coffee liquor" or anything else. The folks that make Kaluha must be laughing over their, ahem, coffee this morning.

    As for the "fruity" flavors they are talking about, that is abother by-product of brewing. Most of the time, yeasts, especially ale yeasts, produce esters as by-products in addition to CO2 and alcohols. For a good example of this, go and buy a Weihenstephan beer (which is only the oldest continuously operating brewery in the world, since 725 AD,) whose flagship beer is a wheat beer that has pronounced clove and "fruity" esters because of the yeast that they use. They are specifically iso-amyl acetate, the same ester found in bananas. So, Nestle proposes to "patent" very natually ocurring brewing by-products? Note that Weihenstpehan is only one example. Head north to Belgium (the veritable Disneyland of beers) and you will find brews with every ester under the sun and more. So where can Nestles propose to patent something that has been done for centuries, and has the hallmark of a brewery that has been in operation for over thirteen centuries?

    To use the British phrase: bullocks.

  117. Prior Art by groot · · Score: 1

    Hey wait a minute! Drew Carey invented that on his show, remember Buzz Beer, although in the show he did have to sell it off, maybe it was to Nestle?!

    --
    "Just remember, it takes a village idiot." -- The Motley Fool.
  118. Now for a real coffee recipe.... by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

    Well all I can say about this story is that the the idea of patenting a recipe is absurd. But "whilst I'm on" I thought I might as well share my favourite coffee related drink recipe.

    Take 1 oversize pint glass. Add 1/3 pint Vodka and 1/3 pint cold filter coffee (this should be good quality filter coffee that has been left to go cold) Finally add 1/3 pint lemonade allowing it all to mix well (do it right and a slight frothing will ensue, do it wrong and you;ve got a table covered in froth !). Now add a couple of ice cubes to taste and drink.

    It's got a lovely, almost chocolatey taste, gets you boozed up after a few and is far better than this "propietary", IP restricted Nestle rubbish to boot !

    Hic... hic... hic...

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  119. Nuts & Gum by elenaran · · Score: 1

    Nuts & Gum... together at last!

  120. For other delicious coffee drinks... by mikeytwice · · Score: 1

    Try Suntory Boss canned coffee or a Manhattan Special. The former can be difficult to find outside of Japan (though I've found it in NYC). Manhattan Special is an espresso soda, which I think would be great if it weren't so sugary. Neither is fermented.

  121. Yummy!! by MirrororriM · · Score: 1

    Now if they'd just patent and produce toothpaste flavored orange juice, I'd be completely content with the variety of drinks available.

    --
    Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
  122. Your reasoning is flawed by Prien715 · · Score: 1

    I know people who program after drinking coffee and have a mug in their office. Having studied in Germany for a semester, I can't say I've ever seen anyone with a full beer stein in their office. Drinking on one's own time is not the same as drinking and trying to code.

    That said, I gave up caffeine years ago. I love the taste of coffee so once every few months I'll indulge myself, but very rarely. I used to get tired at random points during the day as well as be fairly erratic mood-wise.

    However, alcohol, I've found, doesn't have the same after-effects as caffeine, for me anyway. If alcohol effects you negatively, that's fine, no need to be a zealot, but that doesn't extrapolate to all of humanity. If you really want to go a step further, stop having sexual activity since it also clouds the mind and can make one lazy. Or maybe you should cut out eating, after eating, I usually feel the need to have a nap, and tiredness can't lead to good coding.

    Unless you're a virgin and very picky vegan who advocates not eating cooked food, I'm afraid the absolutist reasoning breaks down rather quickly.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  123. Hork... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    I guess having a patent to restrict availability of this idea is a very good thing...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  124. what about banana juice? by bodrell · · Score: 1
    No, IT IS A BLOODY RECEPY![sic]

    Since when has it become acceptable to grant patents on recepies? Even the Coca Cola Company does NOT have (and should not have) a patent on cola.

    I would tend to agree with you, but certain food processing techniques (NOT recipes) are pretty, well, inventive. I don't know about you, but I don't have the equipment for cryogenic separation of coffee oil in my kitchen. Of course, their patent is useless if the product tastes like shit.

    But let's say for the sake of argument that you are right in this case, that the coffee fermentation is just a recipe, and fairly obvious to someone "skilled in the trade," as patents always say. Does that mean all food processing techniques are obvious and non-patentable? Assuming, of course, you believe there is at least some benefit to having patents at all. The first innovative food idea that came to my mind was banana juice. I think making banana juice had been a challenge for years until these folks in India managed to have success, and I think their work certainly deserves a patent.

    The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day. [sic]

    I agree with that sentiment whole-heartedly. Lately I've been more and more sympathetic to the idea of abolishing intellectual property altogether--copyrights, patents, whatever. This is supposed to be a free market, right? Let the market sort it out: whoever has the best implementation, wins. How often does an inventor even get a dime from his or her invention? My grandfather's inventions made millions of dollars--for his employer. On the flip-side, the protection offered by patents allows companies to invest more in R&D, and without that capital expenditure, inventors wouldn't have access to labs and expensive equipment.

    --
    Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
  125. Prior art alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dateline: 1994
    Place: Dallas, TX (The Gingerman)
    Guest Beer: Coffee Beer

    Looks like lager, tastes like coffee.

  126. Just home brew your own by hubie · · Score: 2, Informative
    Here is a nice article on how to home brew your own coffee ale and how to best brew with coffee and/or coffee beans. For those who haven't tried, home brewing is really rather easy (if you can make homemade soup, you can make homemade beer). The only downside (in my opinion) is all the sanitation and cleaning up, i.e., "doin' the dishes." I presently have a Christmas Ale in the fermenter that is about as black as coffee (I hope it mellows a bit between now and Christmas).

    Here is one recipe from that link (I just might have to try it):

    Coffee Imperial Stout
    (5 gal/19L, all-grain)
    OG: 1.067 FG: 1.016
    IBU: 70 SRM: 35
    by Doug McNair, Redhook Breweries

    Ingredients
    8.0 lbs. (3.9 kg) 2-row pale malt
    2.25 lbs. (1 kg) crystal (60ö80¡ L)
    1.5 lbs. (0.7 kg) wheat malt
    1.25 lbs. (0.6 kg) chocolate malt
    0.5 lb. (0.2 kg) roasted barley
    0.5 lb. (0.2 kg) black patent malt
    18.75 AAU Northern Brewer hops (bittering)
    (2.5 oz./71 g of 7.5% alpha acids)
    1.5 oz. (42 g) finishing hops
    (Northern Brewer or Cascade)
    15 oz. (445 mL) of espresso
    Ale yeast (your choice)

    Step by Step
    Mash in all grains at 149¡ F (65¡ C). Hold until converted, about 1 hour. Mash off at 170¼ F (77¡ C) and begin lautering. Sparge to achieve eight gallons (30 L) of wort. Bring to a boil and add 2.5 oz. (71 g) boiling hops. Total boil is 70 minutes. After the boil, turn off the heat and add 1.5 oz. (43 g) finish hops for five minutes. Cool to 70¼ F (21¡ C) and ferment with ale yeast. Original gravity goal is 17.5¡ Plato (1.069 SG). Terminal gravity will be pretty high, approximately 1.016. Add espresso at end of primary fermentation, bottle and enjoy!
  127. Canada by freeweed · · Score: 1

    I don't 100% get the reference, as I find that show more insipid than Everyone Hates Raymond, but up north here we already have caffeinated beer.

    Personally, I always thought that getting tired from excess alcohol consumption was the body's way of saying ENOUGH!, but it's hugely popular with ravers who can't get their E/meth fix in.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    1. Re:Canada by balthan · · Score: 1

      but up north here we already have caffeinated beer
       
      Which is funny, considering Canadian Mountain Dew is caffeine free.

    2. Re:Canada by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. I used to make a point of bringing back dozens of cans of MD whenever visiting the US, because it's a horrid drink without caffeine.

      However, as of this year, we now have caffeinated MD. They call it "energy rush" or some such, and advertise it as an energy drink (like Red Bull). Somehow this gets them around our laws prohibiting caffeine in non-dark, clear, non-alcoholic carbonated beverages.

      Wanna see weirder food laws? Check out margarine in Ontario.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  128. So Did Red Hook by stevesliva · · Score: 1
    Red Hook brewery used to make a "Double Black Stout" with Starbucks coffee. It was actually really tasty. I'm sad they're no longer making it.

    But no doubt the claims in this patent are more specific than just "Beer with Coffee."

    --
    Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    1. Re:So Did Red Hook by Darby · · Score: 1

      First thing I thought of when I saw the title.

  129. This is Patentable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Now let me guess... Nobody here on /. has ever had a friend, spouse, workmate, brother, sister, parent, (etc,etc,etc) ever leave a cup of coffee, or coffee pot sitting out for days, thus generating a "science experiment" have they? Fermented coffee; Gee I would never have thought of that one. Talk about the "obvious" outcome for something that is completely inevitable!!

    Looks like somebody at the USPO better get out the history books before they rubber stamp the next patent. Prior Art? I believe this was invented by the Ethiopians thousands of years ago, by way of a scientific process called "lack of refrigeration" and it even became a ritual to drink the stuff!! A few thousand years later and some BOZOS think they can patent a "natural process" simply by adding a few other things to help preserve it and negate some of the more putrid compounds formed during fermentation of the bean. There is no accounting for taste I guess. (lol) Whats next? Are they going to patent wine too? Or Meade?

  130. obhomer by pentalive · · Score: 1

    Homer no function coffee well without?

  131. Save time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get pissed and sober up at the same time? Brilliant! I'll have some of that...

  132. another brew by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

    Sounds similar to the soy sauce process. I agree that it's a recipe, and maybe they should use something other than patent to protect it.

  133. I'd rather have a Tomacco by paco3791 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ahh sweet, sweet nicotine. and a link for the clueless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomacco

  134. Hello, it's called COFFEE SODA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who has made beer and cider, I can say that yes, this is obvious. I think you (and the patent clerk) have been confused by all the fancy technical terms. I'll describe what's going on here: You take a flavoring--in this case, coffee--you add some sugar and yeast, and you allow it to ferment in a sealed container long enough to carbonate the liquid. Then you stop fermentation by pasteurization, filtration, and/or addition of preservatives. That's one way to make "old-fashioned" soda. This could be done simply by sparging high pressure CO2 through the sugery coffee, but that wouldn't sound as cool (or be patentable). The part about the yeast still metabolizing but not producing any alcohol is just someone else getting confused. The yeast is still producing alcohol, it's just not allowed to ferment long enough to produce very much. The part about the "cryogenic condensor" just means they cool off the exhaust of the roasting process to capture some of the aromatic compounds. In short, this process is very obvious and there's prior art that's at least 100 years old.

  135. Instant heart attack? by Telepathetic+Man · · Score: 1

    I have enough problems when I mix SkyRocket caffeinated chocolate syrup with my 99 Bananas or Parrot Bay. Heart pumping harder, faster.... aieee!

    --
    Just because you can, does not mean you should.
  136. Attack of the Acronyms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TMTOWTDI!?! WTHDTSF (what the hell does that stand for)?

    1. Re:Attack of the Acronyms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TMTOWTDI: /timtoh'dee/, abbrev.

      There's More Than One Way To Do It. This abbreviation of the official motto of Perl is frequently used on newsgroups and mailing lists related to that language.

  137. In Violation of the Creative Commons? by Chrontius · · Score: 1

    Vores Øl beat them to it and licensed under the CC license. I wonder if Nestle has any derivative 'code' in their recipe?

  138. It has no alcohol damnit by web_boyo_in_sac · · Score: 1

    just because it's fermented doesn't mean it's BEER

    no alcohol, no hops, means no beer

    it's just fermented coffee

  139. YRO? by JordanL · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else wondering why this is filed under Your Rights Online?

  140. Anoter "non-obvious" invention by corporatemole · · Score: 0

    Homo Erectus: Hello, Ugg. Would you care to see my new invention? Homo Ergaster: Ugg. Vention? Homo Erectus: I call it fire. Homo Ergaster: Ugg. Fire.. Homo Erectus: You create it by rubbing these two sticks together. Homo Ergaster: Ugg. Stick.. Homo Erectus: It's really quite simple. The friction generates enough heat to cause the sticks to combust. Homo Ergaster: Ugg. Friction...heat...combust... Don't get it. Ugg. Homo Erectus: I'm thinking of taking my invention to the patent office. It'd be a terrible shame if someone stole my idea. Homo Ergaster: Ugg. Shame..

  141. Must be for Japan by SlapAyoda · · Score: 1

    This must be for the Japanese market, where you are never more than a few feet away from a can of beer or a can of coffee. My guess in one of the seedier parts of Tokyo, a beer vending machine and coffee vending machine were dropped right next to each other outside a love hotel, and nine months later one of them vended this new beverage.

    --
    # wrote sig.txt, 23 lines, 31337 chars
  142. Re:Why do people drink this crap? - It's not crap. by harl · · Score: 1

    Because it's not crap.

    "The is no negative side effect to 5 or less cups of coffee a day." --Pharmacist I know.
    My dentist told me it was better than drinking soda. He convinced me to drop soda entirerly in favor of coffee.
    In laboratory rats caffine has been shown to reduce the negative side effects of radiation.
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/22/1/306
    http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jul25/articles23.htm
    Many others available if you search for caffeine and radiation.

    --
    I find being offended by me offensive.
  143. BuZZ BeeR? by Linux-Fiend · · Score: 1

    Some tie wearing mongrel was watching re-runs of the Drew Cary Show.

    --
    -Fiend-
    1. Re:BuZZ BeeR? by Skudd · · Score: 1

      Suppose the producers are going to get in some legal hot water? DISCLAIMER: The above pun is 145.7% unintended.

  144. Prior art! by matt+me · · Score: 1

    I can claim prior art. I'm sure I did this once when drunk. I may even have the photos. Although I bet they're all blurry. It tasted good at the time, although the next morning when I reheated it... Ugh.

  145. I thought its been done. by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

    We already have the Double Black. They should stick with what they know.
    What I want to see is Nestle Choc beer. Maybe frozen on a stick. Possibly syrup for ice cream.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  146. Mars by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Mars is owned by Masterfoods International

    1. Re:Mars by mykdavies · · Score: 1

      Mars is owned by Masterfoods International

      I wonder if anyone has told the Mars family that they don't own their own company any more?

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
  147. For the google impaired by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1
    --
    I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
  148. You're wrong about trade secrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As it stands Coca-Cola's recipe is a trade secret and the same is probably quite true for Pepsi, RC and Dr. Pepper. This means that a "perfect" copy of these drinks is never going to be possible because so long as they protect their trade secret, anyone making a exact clone would be breaking the law in "stealing a trade secret." This means knock-off soda made by the people who provide grocery chains and Wal-Mart with their generic soda will never be perfect replicas and only close approximations.

    What this boils down to is this: no patent means competition is only driven between brands of what are technically varying products. There is no generic substitute so people who want the "real thing" have to buy it from Coke, Pepsi, etc. This means that they usually do not have to worry so much about competing with the prices of generic sodas which are often sold for as much as half the cost of the name brand. The reason they do not have to compete with these is because they are smaller in number, but also because they can never successfully replicate a brands taste without copying the recipe, which as discussed above is illegal.


    Trade secrets can be legally discovered and used via reverse engineering, independent discovery or any other investigative process so long as you don't "steal" them or use any other illegal means or violate any contractual obligations. So if I came up with a recipe independently that tasted exactly like Coke in every way, I could sell it as a Coke substitute. However, since Coke still owns the trademark to Coke, I couldn't put it into packaging of the same design or call it Coke. People would still want the "real" Coke. Coke might have to lower their prices a bit but maybe not. Considering the amount of advertising and emotion they've built into their product, it would be difficult for a substitute gain the same pricing power. Consider the price of "fake" diamonds that have superior qualities in comparison to "natural" diamonds. The same thing is happening with soft drinks.

  149. Nestle owns all European chocolate by Reack · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nestle is the worlds largest food & beverage manufacturer, but they do not own all of the Chocolate. There are plenty of other brands: Masterfood (Mars, M&M', etc) Ferrero (Rocher, Rafaelo, Nutella, tic-tac, etc) Cadbury Lindt Plus Nestle gives your the 5 worlds largest manufacturers. Nestle is just so big as it owns things you wouldn't even know about. Such as a large share in L'Oreal cosmetics. They certainly spread their wings.

  150. Prior art... by hol · · Score: 1

    I let coffee ferment in day-old beer in college, about 10 years ago. Unfortunately someone consumed all the evidence.

    Seriously, there were breweries doing this in 1999 in Seattle (where else), so they are going to have to use a lot of weasel words to make the patent hold water.

    --
    - - - Non Caffeine Drink or Drink Error
  151. Java by yasuo.hiroshi · · Score: 1

    Beer made from java, but is it cross platform?

  152. Alcohol-free yeast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when does yeast not produce alcohol at 22 centigrade? I make that out to be about 71 fahrenheit. I used to be a pretty active home brewer, and I can tell you that yeast makes alcohol just fine at that temperature. Four hours is a pretty short fermentation, but there is nothing about the temperature that should prevent alcohol formation. Maybe what they should be patenting is not their process, but the genome of the world's most unusual brewers yeast.

  153. Coffee Ginger Beer by BubblePipe · · Score: 1

    It might be more helpful to point out that the fermentation process for this product leads to something along the lines of a traditionally made soft drink, such as ginger beer, dandelion & burdock or fermented lemonade, having nearly or actually no alcohol. The process they employ is radically different because of the oil seperation stage followed by the now everyday nitrogen injection (like Caffreys who cannot complete their website because their staff are drunk). An interesting and patent free alternive to this would be to make ginger beer as normal except to include expresso grounds in the jar with it. Its pretty stunning stuff, but don't stop there take a leaf out of the brewers books and try lemon or orange zest, liquorice (a favourite with darker beers) or cherry skins. There is a basic recipe here: http://thefoody.com/drinks/gingerbeer.html All of these work with proper beer fermentation but you have to wait 20 days longers to get the result. Also remember that keeping everything sterile is the art of good brewing.

    --
    Bubble Pipe Life does not stop and start at your convenience Dude
  154. Advertising Idea by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
    It's like a car wash in your mouth

    You're right that foaminess sells. It sure doesn't make sense to me.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  155. I would dispute that patenet if I were a lawyer by StormKrow · · Score: 1

    Coffee beers have been around for a long time, that's nothing new, in fact if it were ever patented it would be public domain by now.

    --
    Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!
    1. Re:I would dispute that patenet if I were a lawyer by StormKrow · · Score: 1

      sorry I meant PATENT (I just woke up)

      --
      Who cares about the ozone layer?...thanks to CFC's I can write my name......IN CHEESE!!!