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."
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.
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.
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.
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"
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
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.
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.
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.
What about Cadbury and Mars (who make mars, m&m, snickers and other things I think). Both are (at least in australia) quite large.
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."
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.
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."
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?
/. would like you to believe the case isn't as dumbed down as it looks.
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
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."
You are a shrill for Nestle
:D
I think you mean shill.
"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.
Here is one recipe from that link (I just might have to try it):
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.