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."

Comments

What every college town needs

[iamjambon]

More wide-awake drunks.

Woohoo!

[sexybomber]

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

Buzz Beer

[Sohgin]

I think Drew Carey has a lawsuit.

Re:Buzz Beer

[DrWhizBang]

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.

Re:Why do people drink this crap?

[Krach42]

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

Re:Why do people drink this crap?

[servognome]

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? ;)

Re:Why do people drink this crap?

[afra242]

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....

Re:Why do people drink this crap?

[dangitman]

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.

Re:Why do people drink this crap?

[shmlco]

"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....

Not a bad patent...

[Zouden]

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.

Re:Not a bad patent...

[thebdj]

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.

Re:Not a bad patent...

[thebdj]

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.

Foamy

[yintercept]

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.

Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate

[10Ghz]

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.

Re:Nestle owns all European chocolate

[jonwil]

What about Cadbury and Mars (who make mars, m&m, snickers and other things I think). Both are (at least in australia) quite large.

Re:Why do people drink this crap?

[zoloto]

whoa, someone needs to lay off the caffeine