Slashdot Mirror
McDonalds Files To Patent Making a Sandwich
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "McDonalds has applied for patent WO2006068865, which carries the title 'METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING A SANDWICH.' John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich, can eat his heart out (unless that's been patented, too). Undoubtedly, some people are contemplating whether there's anything novel in this patent that is somehow obscured by its generic title. Feel free to examine their flowchart for yourself and see exactly how novel their sandwich 'subroutines' are. The good news is that, given that it only mentions generic sandwich making 'tool(s),' rather than any specific machine, it might not survive after the In Re Bilski decision, which was meant to put a stop to absurdities such as this. But until McDonalds's application is rejected or invalidated, make sure you don't use their flowchart when making sandwiches. After all, if you 'apply appropriate condiments to appropriate compartment,' you might infringe upon their IP."
if you 'apply appropriate condiments to appropriate compartment
Thank god all of my condiments are inappropriate.
A lot of my compartments as well for that matter
I can has cheezburger patent?
I was just stacking bread without asking myself the tough questions like McDonalds did. My paper hat is off to them.
What's next?
'McDonalds Drive Trough user patents method for burning self with hot coffee.'?
Other than mentioning a tool there is no tangible apparatus here. What they describe is just a way of doing something, providing a flowchart doesn't make it more impressive. Looks to me like a joke.
What's next, outsource the drive-through window person overseas?
- James
How about employees that come up with their own style of work flow? Would this require management to ensure the way staff are preparing food doesn't infringe any patents?
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
I currently have that patent pending in hopes of sueing them next time it happens!
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
The flowchart is irrelevant; the question is what do the CLAIMS say. Here, the claims are directed to bringing separate refrigerated sandwich makings up to temperature in very short order. Take a look, for example, at claim 1:
A method of filling an order for a sandwich comprising: toasting a bread component for the sandwich for less than about 1 minute in response to the order in a first heating device; and initiating and completing the heating of a sandwich filling for the sandwich from about 4OF or less to about 120F or more in a second heating device, while the bread component is heating, in response to the order.
Now, I CAN do that with my toaster & my microwave. But we don't need to resort to hyperbole to do that, do we?
Moreover, this is a PCT application, based on US application 11/018,989. The US application has been abandoned, for failure to respond to the most basic of office actions.
And seriously, is this news-worthy? If /. wants to publish EVERY bad patent application, it's going to get crowded here pretty quick. There's a lot of chaff out there.
So McDonalds have decided to waste their money on a worthless, unenforceable patent. Big deal. At least it's their money, not mine.
Nothing to see here, move along...
I think there might be claims of prior art on this one.
The Earl of Sandwich called, and he wants a slice.
Hasn't any of McDonalds' higher ups ever been to a different eatery that serves burgers. Come on, all places pre-prep the basic condiments/etc that go on their sandwiches. You can easily see the lettuce, tomato, and onion all stacked together ready to drop onto a sandwich. OK, they may have come up with a novel tool which guarantees uniformity, but patent the "Sandwich Uniformity Tool" not the process for making a sandwich.
Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
If it includes holding the pickle and holding the lettuce, there's prior art.
I wonder if all of the McManuals that cover all of this McStuff
nullify any attempt by McDonalds to patent any of this stuff. I
am sure there are 20 year old Manuals that cover all of this
stuff.
Someone with a franchise archive would be the best person to show
prior art perversely enough.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
One might note that an "apparatus" is described. *That* can be patented. How it is used comprises the method. Nothing odd here as far as I can tell.
xkcd explains how to get a sandwich.
I make sammiches.
I record my sleeptalking
"There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist."
--Bill Gates, on the motivations of those who seek to reform patent law.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Did any parts of sandwich drop onto floor?
If yes, have fewer than 5 seconds elapsed?
If yes, pick up and continue with procedure...
im in ur patent office
approvin teh obveeyus
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Well, as one with knowledge, the patent application was officially determined to be abandoned on November 12, 2008 by the USPTO. McDonald's failed to respond to an office action, possibly as a result of the Bilski decision.
So, rejoice and go make sammiches.
Americans refer "burgers" as "sandwiches".. reserving the word "burger" to refer to just the patty.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The "tool" is a plate.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
Previous implementations of the so-called "sandwich" were typically composed of what would at least pass for actual food.
I have no idea why Americans call a burger a sandwich. A sandwich is two slices of bread with usually cold ingredients in between, the bread is usually square. A burger is two buns with mostly hot ingredients in between. the buns are usually round. Now there are exceptions but there is a difference that is obvious. I don't go to McDonalds to buy a sandwich, I go to buy a burger, if I want a sandwich I go to Subway, except I don't because Subway sucks, for that matter if I want a burger I go to Burger King, they are much better, and not if you'll note called Sandwich King.
The patent is a patent application to the World Intellectual Property Organization. I'm unclear if In Re Bilski would apply, given that Bilski is an American decision.
Of course the United States could tell WIPO to go stuff it, but that doesn't set a very good precedence, given the number of U.S. corporations which would like to leverage WIPO to prevent copyright infringement abroad.
This is what you get, by the way, when you have a treaty organization (the United Nations) with a bureaucratic agency (WIPO) pretending to be a world government but without the appropriate checks on power upwards or the appropriate guarantees of power downwards. (The U.S. Constitution, by contrast, guarantees checks upwards through the democratic process, and guarantees downwards by requiring all member States to be republics. The U.N., on the other hand, is no such critter: we don't elect U.N. officials and member States are not required to be democratic.) Now I can't even make a damned sandwich without licensing the appropriate technology from Geneva...
http://www.teamfortress2.de/gfx/screenshots/tf2/tf2_sandvich.jpg
They even show the health benefits of each food group!
I don't see any.
Have gnu, will travel.
Does this mean the Hamburgler can be sued for piracy?
If you do enough clicking, you will find that there is, in fact, a "gadget" involved here. It's some sort of hinged sandwich assembly tray. This is not just a business process patent.
A year or two ago, McDonald's was testing out deli sandwiches in select restaurants. Based on the patent, this is probably something they came up with for that, not for their mainstream burger business.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
The broken link was meant to go here. I have no idea why Slashdot changed it from the original you can find in my submission. Perhaps they intended to link to a past Slashdot story? Oh well.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
Is because of quiznos, subways and other healthier alternative sandwich shops that are constantly biting out of mcdonalds market share. Mcdonalds patenting this is the equivilent to killing the electric car; they want you to have the dirty cheap stuff, and want to keep that healthy sandwich stuff away.
What they patented here is not the 'mcdonalds experience', what they are patenting is the quiznos/subway experience, especially the 'toasted sandwich' part in step 2. If they were to patent this method they would shut down every quiznos, subway and any other shop that posed a threat to the Big M.
People complain about scalding hot coffee at specific restaurant. Restaurant has policy that states coffee temperature. Coffee is continually over this temperature. People again complain about scaling coffee. Again, investigation reports coffee outside norms. Restaurant says it'll fix it. Person gets nether regions burned by coffee, sues and wins due to the afformentioned problems. Get the facts right.
My family owns a fast food restaurant, and I'm nearly positive that this is how they've been doing things for almost 40 years. If I dug through my grandparents old 8mm films, I'm sure that there's documentary footage of them following these steps that goes back decades. The owner of the local McD's is a douchebag. We just recently got a rockstar lawyer on our side. This could be a great chance to earn some free publicity by going up against them... Thanks for the info, /. - hopefully I can convince them to take this up and present some prior art.
It's really a lot simpler than that. ./configure, make, sudo make me a sandwich
Because they seem to have a pretty good method and apparatus for that as well! :)
now I'm all excited. Thanks,
They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
Notice how none of the steps in their "patent" include anything about washing hands / tools before or after the sandwich making process.
Is this the key to McDonalds success?
"People complain about scalding hot coffee at specific restaurant. Restaurant has policy that states coffee temperature. Coffee is continually over this temperature. People again complain about scaling coffee. Again, investigation reports coffee outside norms. Restaurant says it'll fix it. Person gets nether regions burned by coffee, sues and wins due to the afformentioned problems. Get the facts right."
--excerpt from Rorschach's Journal, 1985
I don't drink McDonalds coffee because it's lukewarm.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You know what this reminds me of? The Stainless Steel Rat series.
In A Stainless Steel Rat Is Born(1985) there's a chain of restaurants serving Porcuswine(a mix between a pig and a porcupine, as large as a cow). The important thing? It describes a system pretty much as you state - that upon order placement automated systems make a burger, fresh from frozen, using automated equipment. It's so automated the restaurants are unmanned - a cleaning service comes through every so often, and they restock the robotic kitchen around once a week - or as they're notified that it's running short on stuff.
If this is simply a system for automating 'throwing a bun & burger on the grill when the order comes in', I'm sure there's all sorts of automated systems that already do it.
Thing is - that 60 second delay from refrigerated meat patty to cooked* can both reduce waste and increase taste/freshness, improving their product and increasing savings in a time of increasing food and wage costs. Heck, you can have 'anticipated' cooking - where the patty & bun is started when the order is entered into the computer. You don't get cancels that often, and in a busy restaurant, the patty would be usable anyways - at this time McD's only has two different sized patties.
*It currently takes ~90 seconds from frozen patty to cooked patty. With a refrigerated one, you could do it even faster.
I don't read AC A human right
McDonald's still makes crappy food no matter how many patents they apply for.
As Mad Magazine said in the 1970's "MMMM" or McDonald's Makes Messy Meals.
P.S. Big Mac secret sauce is really Thousand Island Dressing, but they still patented it anyway as a trade secret.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
He wants his IP back and centuries of fees from everyone on the planet! :P
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Under Bilski, a method claim must be tied to a particular machine or must cause some kind of transformation. I haven't read the McD patent but is sounds like a claim for making a sandwich would be a transformation so Bilski wouldn't invalidate that kind of claim. That doesn't mean the claim is valid though as the claim could well have been something done in the past or obvious over what has been done in the past.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to call this patent "How not to make a sandwich"? I sure as hell wouldn't want one of my creations being mistaken for Mickey D's fare.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I thought methods had to be tied to a particular machine as part of that test? All I see are general references to unspecified "tools" that have "compartments" and whatnot.
Though upon rereading the link that got removed from the article, I guess you're saying that passes through the other fork because it turns ingredients into a sandwich (which, presumably, counts as a transformation)?
I'm just trying to clarify, because I have no intention of making the same mistakes twice.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
Now nobody else can make bad hamburgers like McDonalds, they'll have to make bad hamburgers like someone else.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
If you follow the flowchart, you only serve pre-made sandwiches during busy periods. So if you're the first in line for dinner after that evening lull, you're going to get the oldest stalest sandwich.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
McDonalds is now serving their food in a trough?
I see they have finally acknowledged their food is swill.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
(Not that this AC is me, but insert after: "Restaurant says it'll fix it.") Customer orders coffee, set it in lap, since cupholders at the time (early '90's) are non-standard in all but the newest cars. Customer is frail old person (yes old people are allowed to drink coffee), and spills said scalding coffee in said lap from poorly fitting lid. Person gets nether regions (badly) burned by coffee, sues {where it is determined that it is 80% McDonald's fault and 20% hers} and wins {$200,000, damages amounting to her hospital bills and pain and suffering, which were later reduced to $160,000.} Then, punitive damages are assessed totaling $2.7 million, roughly equivalent to about 2 days of coffee (and only coffee) sales, as punishment for continued failure to comply with industry and their own published standards. Get the facts right.
why not just file patent for cooking (heating food) and eating (breaking food with teeth) instead?
same logic, more effective
Does Burgertime count as prior art?
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Would you like to patent fries with that ?
... But we can still work around it via sudo, right?
I don't drink McDonald's coffee because it is(or at least used to be before the new McCafe thing, but that's not the kind of coffee we're talking about) crap, that doesn't change the fact that nothing sold for the purposes of oral consumption should be hot enough to cause third degree burns on external tissue, even in one's sensitive nether regions, let alone in a 3 cent cup with a 1 cent lid.
There's a substantial difference between luke warm and capable of causing third degree burns, you can't drink coffee that hot, and if you wanted coffee that hot because it'll be cold by the time you get to work otherwise, then the solution is a better container not hotter coffee.
As I read it, it does sound as if some kind of gadgetry is involved... it's some sort of a sandwich-making jig, as well a system for toasting the bread and heating the filling at the same time.
I certainly can't speak to its merits as a patent, but there's more here than just putting meat between two slices of bread.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Since the days of the 15 cent burger and fries McD's has been looking at new ways to deliver a more consistent product, reduce waste, simplify and speed production. "You can't be Mommy." Small savings here and there can reap very big rewards.
I realize it's considered terribly clever on Slashdot to deride every patent as "obvious", but it would be nice if people realized that the title of the patent does not indicate what the patent covers, but only the topic of the patent. Hence, a patent for making sandwiches does not cover all possible means of making sandwiches, but only a particular procedure having something to do with the making of sandwiches. What the patent *actually covers* is in the claims.
I'd like to thank Slashdot for once again bringing us timely information from.... wait for it... 2006.
I follow the same process when making sandwiches for my kids.
So, why are my sandwiches good while McDee's are bad?
McDee's has an extra secret step: add ass.
cc
I'd *LOVE* to see the court case of:
McDonalds Corp. Vs. A-Bunch-Of-Pissed-Off-Italian-Delicatessen-Owners-And-Their-Families
I can already tell you, "I would be lovin' it!"
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The actually money awarded in that case is unknown since she and McDonald's entered into a secret settlement http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
"It covers the "simultaneous toasting of a bread component" "
-a.k.a. placing the bread in a toaster.
"The assembly tool contains a "cavity" into which the sandwich-maker places the garnish ("including, but not limited to, lettuce, onions, tomatoes, pickles, chilli, coleslaw, giardinera, peppers, spinach, radishes, olives, egg, cooked bacon and cheese") and the condiments ("ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, sauces, relish, oils, salt, pepper, barbecue sauce, steak sauce, hot sauce, dressings including salad dressings, yogurt, butter, margarine and liquid or semi-liquid cheese")"
-a.k.a. a Spoon or Ladle.
""Typically, a sandwich filling will thereafter be placed in the bread component,""
-a.k.a. Putting the ingredients onto bread.
"A "bread component" is then placed over the cavity and the assembly tool "inverted" to tip out the contents."
-Turning over the spoon or ladle and letting the ingredients fall onto the bread.
"It also describes how to make cocktail sandwiches, by taking a full-sized version that is "cut up into smaller pieces"."
-a.k.a. Cutting up a larger sandwich into smaller pieces.
""Often the sandwich filling is the source of the name of the sandwich, for example - ham sandwich.""
-a.k.a. Naming the sandwich after it's contents.
Wow..... McDonalds *IS* getting desperate.....
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I didn't think McDonald's had these yet... http://www.theonion.com/content/video/new_wearable_feedbags_let
Bart: If you really wanted us to be neater, you'd serve us out of one long bowl.
Marge: You're talking about a trough. We're not going to eat from a trough.
The theory of relativity gave us atomic weapons, whereas incompetent patent offices give us patents on making a sandwich. It's obvious that Albert Einstein's change of profession was a mistake humanity has suffered from ever since.
Property is theft.
I was thinking about what part of this could be considered unique. The three decisions in the flow chart have certainly been made before.
So I thought that maybe the tool was a custom application:
"Place heated bread product over tool(s) with the crown over the crown cavity and the heel over the heel cavity"
But prior art for this tool = my hands.
But we can sudo-make a sandwich, right?
...that doesn't change the fact that nothing sold for the purposes of oral consumption should be hot enough to cause third degree burns on external tissue, even in one's sensitive nether regions, let alone in a 3 cent cup with a 1 cent lid.
You do know that it is impossible to get third degree burns from boiling coffee. Once the coffee leaves the dispenser it is now in a state of cooling off from ~212F. The worst you could burn yourself is second degree. A third degree burn tends to require an active flame or strong acid, neither of which are available in a cup of McDonalds coffee.
I personally think that the store doesn't need to posts a warning that the coffee is hot. Coffee is supposed to be hot (iced coffee not included). Its called personal responsibility.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
My process is soooo much easier!
1 slice of bread
shit on it
1 slice of bread on top of said shit
market it for kids
PROFIT!!!ONEONEONE
People again complain about scaling coffee.
Yeah, I really hate when my cup keeps its shape but gets twice or half as big all of the sudden! ;)
What makes McDonald's unique is the spit in the onion rings
While I genuinely agree with you...
1) The coffee was outside the prescribed temperature bounds.
2) This [1] was not unknown to the staff
3) initally McD's was asshatish and wouldn't cover medical
4) never tell a jury "they had it coming, and we refused their medical bills"
5) ?????
5a) $$$$$$$$$ (re #4)
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Thankfully US patents do not have any significance in the EU.
My mistakes are due to knowing more about what patents ought to be than what they are. One need not understand every bit of law to know when its effects are harmful, after all.
Anyhow, I seriously question any claim that there's something 'novel' about this method of making a sandwich. I think lots of people are able to do something else while waiting for something else (like a microwave) to finish cooking. And any time you do something more than once, it's simple enough to break it down into sub-tasks and do each of those before moving on. Lastly, serving the oldest burger first is pretty much exactly as expected.
While you're right that this isn't a purely mental process, it's a rather menial one. Yes, there's a little bit of information buried in there about what "tools" the sandwich maker uses. But lacking very much information about that, even what little is in the claims is pretty damn useless.
So yes, my purpose was mostly to let people laugh at a silly patent. My 'crusade' as you call it, though, is merely to get people to change weird and arbitrary laws to sensible, enforceable ones that respect the Constitutional directive to 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts'. I'm too well aware of the fact that it's easier said than done, but it's pretty obvious that some things aren't working.
I did realize that the patent hadn't issued yet. It's the 'rejected' part of 'rejected or invalidated' because the two aren't the same thing. For picking over everything I might or might not realize so carefully, how did you miss that? I guess I'm not the only one whose brain can do short-circuit evaluation of an 'or' clause.
[Pedants, please note that I know that you are only permitted to skip evaluation of the second half if the first half is true. Even so, I am referring back to his complaint that I ignored half of the machine-or-transformation test.]
Also, I do actually know that the claims are more important than the title, it's just that the flowchart is much more comprehensible than the text of the patent. Normal people, who might in theory want to make use of this patent when it expires, have a hard enough time understanding technology of any sort to begin with. You add legalese to that and the patent becomes worthless as a description of anything. Even though it's supposed to help those "skilled in the art" to duplicate the invention (which art? law??).
Patents as they exist now are a profit center for patent lawyers and a business expense for industry. No one I have ever known derives useful information for them (even though we have patents to get people to disclose their inventions...) and even if they wanted to, they'd be liable for triple damages for willful infringement if they were found to have read someone's patent before it expired.
So maybe we should be reversing this line of questioning. What good are patents? They create a huge legal expense. Why are they worth that?
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
I recall her getting third degree burns, which is why I said third. They may have been second, but it still wasn't pretty.
I always comment on this story because it's always used as an example of out of control lawsuits, when it's actually not. A company was negligent, provided something dangerously hot which was intended for immediate consumption and in an inadequate container.
They then acted like asshats and treated the woman like dirt, so they got sued. That's what lawsuits are for.
The sisters who sued a few years ago because they felt McDonalds was addictive and that it was Ronald's fault they were fat cows, that was a lawsuit out of control. They didn't win though.
... pathetic graph I have ever seen. Seriously. Everyone screams- including combinatorics screaming. You have a total potential ... 34 to 68 meaningless combinations that aren't even really combinations?
Die. Go hit yourself in the head and die.
We will soon know if businesses can patent business processes, or methods.
If this doesn't ring a bell that something is VERY wrong with patents I don't know what will.
Probably all mothers must file to patent teaching babies how to eat and drink and walk, then sue them for patent infringement.
"Method and apparatus to inscribe a user manual onto a toothpick."
How about before making silly comments folks actually have a go at reading the patent? It's a method AND apparatus. The patent also discusses some machinery for doing things like heating in parallel with the thing being assembled. It might stand half a chance of getting through if the apparatus is not deemed to obvious by one with knowledge of the field; but it is more than just a process.
Making a sandwich was often used, back in the day, as a process for teaching logical flow and show how computers required you to include each and every step of the program in order to get the correct results -- it's like, an intro to computers, first day of class exercise. Many thousands of us probably flowcharted this process back then. Don't know if it's still used now...
..."my recommended process for maximally-exciting masturbation"!
But then I wonder...Slashdot may already hold the patent (*sighs*)
Can you imagine the upset, but also windfall profits that could be made if we patent the mixing of a drink? Surely there's some patent officer dumb enough to use McDonalds as a precedent and grant a method and apparatus for mixing a drink, applying appropriate shots to appropriate glasses? Then, imagine all the bars we could sweep into and take over by threat of litigation! So who's with me?[/sarcasm]
Photo
This is true, I've stayed in Ham.
[Intentionally left blank]
If you read the patent closely it patents a tool in which the sandwich is assembled. The flowchart illustrates the use of the tool.. it neither patents sandwiches nor making sandwiches but a tool for making them.
Now maybe they will start making sandwiches that actually look like the picture on the menu!
I am not sure why you got modded up as interesting as your wrong.
I recommend you read up on the case as it wasn't cut and dried as it is made out to be. Basically they were serving coffee well beyond the heat that a normal human could safely consume it at. The coffee in question did in fact give 3rd degree burns. McDonalds at the time even had over 100's of similar reported cases.
From the case: "Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds."
There is a good breakdown of the case here.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
I feel so much better knowing I can only burn myself to the second degree with their stupid overpriced coffee.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
In their flowchart there is a step where they have to take an order, but there is no step for receiving a payment...
John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich, can eat his heart out (unless that's been patented, too).
He's got nothing to worry about there. The Aztec's patent on "A method for removing, preparing, and eating human hearts (not nessecarily in that order)" expired centuries ago.
I would point out step 710:
Retrieve oldest preassembled sandwich filling from warm storage and place on support.
mmm, mmm, good!
You want fries with that patent?
You do know that it is impossible to get third degree burns from boiling coffee.
I'm not an expert on conditions that can cause burns, however it seems that in the Macdonalds' case a factor was how long the hot liquid was held against the skin. According to this article, the plaintiff in this case, and others, did suffer third degree burns from the McDonalds' coffee. From the article:
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
And,
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
This also sound remarkably like Burger King's unpatented method for making a Whopper. Maybe they intend to sue their competition out of business, or force them to serve cold Whoppers?
You do know that it is impossible to get third degree burns from boiling coffee. Once the coffee leaves the dispenser it is now in a state of cooling off from ~212F. The worst you could burn yourself is second degree. A third degree burn tends to require an active flame or strong acid, neither of which are available in a cup of McDonalds coffee.
The government says you're full of crap:
Apparently, people who know more about this than you do think it's possible to get a 3rd degree burn from boiling water.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Looks like McDonalds might be infringing on my patent of making food.
I heard shooting your mouth off without knowing what you're talking about makes you look like a Jerk(tm). I should patent *that*
If McDonalds gets this patent, then I am going to patent my famous fart method.
I can already see everyone else spontaneously combusting having to hold their farts from release
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
M. Poirot keeps hammering the point home: "Order and method, mon ami."
C'est ca.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
Is that they have all this built up like it's a novel new invention.... THE SANDWICH. Well if it was a novel product(meat, cheese, cheese, meat, bread on the outsides) we wouldn't have the name sandwich for it... and if it was a new way of making a sandwich(place bread on the inside, hold the meat with your hands) I might be more sympathetic. Every PB and J mom out there is prior art to this. They haven't even made an attempt to cut the crusts off here, or put a RFID tag in it... just describing out the process by which all fast food is made, has been made, and by which will be made for some time. Only sandwich that isn't prior art here is the Heavy Weapons guy's sammich.... which just materializes out of thin air. Every other sandwich would owe royalties in this case.
John Walsh once found me while looking for some other kid. He was not amused.
I personally think that the store doesn't need to posts a warning that the coffee is hot. Coffee is supposed to be hot (iced coffee not included). Its called personal responsibility.
P..pp...personal responsibility?
These words you say, they scare me.
Here is the IP required to assemble a Wendy's oldfashioned hamburger. Use it wisely.
Bun
Mayonaise
Ketchup
Pickle
Onion
Tomato
Lettuce
Mustard
Cheese
Meat
Bun
If you can source square 1/4lb 'beef' patties that are about 35% fat your are in business.
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
Somebody set up us the sandwich
We get order
(What?)
Main machine turn on
(It's you!)
How are you, may I take order?
All your burgers are belong to us
You are on the way to construction
(What you say?)
You have no chance to fry, make your time
Ha ha ha
Manager !!
Take off every 'ZIG'
You know what you doing
Move 'ZIG'
For great cheesburgers
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
I can't believe there's this much argument over a ridiculous patent. It's still funny despite all you pseudo-intellectual wind bags dogging it. "ooh look at me, I know so much about patent laws, bask in my glory..."
Jesus, get over yourselves. Dont you people have jobs?
I hate it when my coffee climbs out of its cup!
Doesn't human reproduction "transform"? We may all *look* similar, but at the DNA level, we're different enough, and we have our pretty-much-own piggy-backing microsystem of fauna and parasites. We reproduce for selfish (power, money, property, ego) reasons, and making/selling products is not that far removed reproducing/manipulating offspring. Why not we all have customized patents for all our offspring?
Patenting a Big Mac, a Whopper, a Spicy (Crispy) Chicken Sandwich... a Po-Boy/Sub/ ... all STUPID. They not novel, are not difficult to reproduce, and while tied to a branding or an image, should be COPYRIGHT protected, not PATENT-PROTECTED.
Maybe lynching or genocide warfare should be used to put an end to patent trolls who try to hijack or patent something that has been ubiquitous and lazily un-defended after all these years.
If they get a patent for their menu of sandwiches, i will boycott them. Oh, and yes, i pretty much don't wear too many "branded" clothing. I scraped the name off of a pair of headphones when the silver name badge would not remain covered by a famed permanent marker applied in multiple layers. I pretty much refuse to wear clothing that some designer so desperately needs to have emblazoned with his/her name. If the design is awesome, word of mouth should suffice. If it doesn't, too bad. Cars, too. I like Hondas, but if i got around to ripping of the badge and epoxying the holes, i wouldn't FEEL bad. Besides, most people looking at or impressed by Hondas don't need a badge to identify a Honda. Hell, i even blacked out "Targus" on my backpack, partly to avert "Steal Me", and partly because I'm pissed that they killed off "Rack Gear" rack-fitted laptop bags...
I am NOT anti-capitalist. I just think some designers get too fucking carried away with jumbo 16" letter emblazoned across their wares. It turns my stomach. Others can do what they want, but...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I often panic while making sammiches... is that unusual?
Sure, but you might run into some prior art problems if you try to patent it.
You're actually talking primarily about trademark in your post, and that is the strongest IP protection for fast food places. You don't generally eat at McD's because you care about their patented sandwich-making process. You eat there because of the awesome power of the Golden Arches (especially when you couple it with the Coca-Cola you buy there).
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
How crappy is our patent system when something like this is arguably more valid than many patents that have been upheld?
If a real estate lawyer with a flashing "12:00" on his VCR can sue Apple over the iPhones browser technology, McDonald's can patent making a sandwich.
"when you couple it with the Coca-Cola"
I think you meant to specify "when you couple it with theIR Coca-Cola".
I have noticed that McDonald's Coca Cola is is modified to suit their menu. I later found out the various chains request such a thing. The Coke at Carl's and other places tastes different. The Dr. Pepper at Carl's SUCKS, and I think it's got something to do with competition. If the franchisee is in cahoots with the Coke distributor to modify the carbonation of a certain competing drink, the consumers frequenting THERE will not drink it next time. I LIKE Dr. Pepper, and prefer it to Coke in most cases, but when I go to Carl's I just quit the Dr. Pepper because it tastes so horrible that it's almost vomit-inducing. Really. Flat, sugary, bland, and gut-hollowing, to my senses. So, Dr. Pepper lost consumption tally from my not drinking it from machines. Canned sodas (Coke & Dr. Pepper) tend to induce more burping in me than the dispensary counterparts.
I even (around 2000, or 1999) TOLD the CJ manager (or shift manager?) there (I think it's the one either at in Milpitas at Montague/Able, IIRC, or one somewhere else), but he just shrugged it off, even tho i hinted that the coke guy might have been messing with the machine.
I wouldn't be surprised if the competition is that cutthroat that vendors and restaurants will for one reason or another OFFER a soda competitor's drink, but screw with the carbonation or sugar. Now, though, there are those bagged syrups, but they can still be mucked with, if someone knows how.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
"There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist."
--Bill Gates, on the motivations of those who seek to reform patent law.
While Gates has a partly valid point, it should be pointed out that "intellectual property" is a government created property. Without government there would be no intellectual property. Thus, more stringent IP laws require more powerful government.
Personally, I think it is possible to support limited IP without supporting the continuing expansion of IP laws.
Can anybody give a rational reason that a copyright should have a longer duration than a patent?
> But if you're going to go on an anti-IP crusade, at least know what you're talking about. Try this paper written by one of the partners I work for. It's a very good, very accessible layman's primer on IP. And being informed makes you much more persuasive.
Thank you. I will read that. Even if we might disagree, it is my policy to do my best to learn from every mistake.
But I'm not sure how much we disagree. As much as I am against IP in principle, I'm more pragmatic than to suppose that I can do anything more than to shift the Overton window a bit towards what I believe to be sensible.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
And those people obviously don't know anything because Rotten Ronnie's doesn't USE boiling water to make coffee. They don't even use boiled water.
They use HOT water
And those people obviously don't know anything because Rotten Ronnie's doesn't USE boiling water to make coffee.
They used 185F water according to court evidence. I'm gonna take a giant leap here and say that if 150F water can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 seconds, then 185F water can do it even faster (and 212F water faster yet, which is what the GGP post claimed was impossible).
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It's not every day that someone comes up with a brilliant workflow design like this, that handles *both* hot and cold garnishes *and* caters for fillings that may already have been assembled. This is likely to save a lot of time and reduce costs even further at McDonalds. I eat a lot of burgers there and the cheaper and faster they come out the better.
Don't touch sandvich!
"Troll"? I strongly disagree with the "intellectual property" laws of the USA, but can a person honestly think the parent is trolling?
This moderation is more evidence for my "Slashdot is full of 14-year-olds and I shouldn't waste my time there" theory.
Having now read that paper (if not all the footnotes, which actually take up more paper than the paper itself), I want to say thanks.
It's interesting that it's both helpful and useless. It's helpful because it lays out a lot of basic principles that I knew to one extent or another in one place. It's useless because each part of that has a crazy exception or loophole to it (as evidenced by all those footnotes). Such as where it mentions that a business might want to record all their calls and marks it (* Legal in Texas.).
But of course there's a crazy patchwork of laws. And rules about jurisdiction matter (where does the recording happen, legally?). Heck, there's one state where it's only illegal to record calls if you KNOW it's illegal (I don't remember which state, but I remember that it came up during the fuss over Linda Tripp). And the mish-mash of one and two party consent states is just plain crazy.
And given that you're probably some type of lawyer (which, I realize, isn't quite the same thing as an attorney, even if many are both), you know that those screwball exceptions are always what gets you. Because buried in the case The United States v. $1.38 And A Half-Eaten Sandwich there could be some obscure precedent over what the definition of "was" is or something.
> the process covered in this patent in a very successful product called Uncrustables which generates annual sales of over $60 million per year. Given these additional facts, it doesn't sound quite so silly.
Well, only if you don't think that putting peanut butter on both sides of the bread and cutting off the crust didn't have any prior art. But maybe I'm biased because of all the PB&J I ate growing up.
> Albie's filed an ex parte reexamination, which resulted in rejecting all claims of the patent. Smucker appealed to the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit which upheld the rejection. So, far from showing that the patent system is broken, examples like this show the fundamental strength of the patent system and how well it works.
[...]
> Filing a lawsuit is just the start of a multi-year process.
Yeah, it works great! The patent issued, even though it was killed on re-examination and they ONLY had to suffer years of litigation!
I note that they didn't mention whether Albie's was able to recover court costs or attorney's fees. If you don't get BOTH of those, victory in court is Pyrrhic at best, because you've lost thousands or millions of dollars just in defending yourself from bogus claims of infringement.
Hardly what I'd call a rousing success.
> If there were zero patent lawsuits then it would mean that the patent system probably had no value!
Value to whom? Patent lawsuits are a burden to society. We grant patents on the presumption that doing so will get people to disclose inventions they would otherwise keep secret. That argument is not without merit, but the execution is problematic.
The trick to maximizing patents value to society as a whole is to keep as much incentive towards useful disclosure as possible so that the expired patents are actually useful, while having as few lawsuits as possible.
Unfortunately, Congress is too often biased towards maximizing the amount of money there is to be made, as if it were a perfect metric for measuring how much society benefits from IP. This is shown by how often they keep increasing the copyright protection terms.
Anyhow, I think I have some fundamental disagreements with that testimony. Especially if they want me to think well of the 'crust-less PB&J with peanut butter on both slices' case.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
Wow... a very strange rant. I think you should maybe stop eating fast food :-/
You know a lot about the syrups and bagged syrups and stuff. I am worried for your cholesterol from eating so many burgers =(
Oh wait that's trademarked. No problem - the purpose of trademarks is to protect CONSUMERS from confusion, not to protect companies.
> "The law should be what I think it should be, and not what it actually is" is not a valid line of argument.
Actually, one can give a court a "good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." That's how laws get overturned, especially when the Supreme Court is involved.
That language, by the way, is from a legal definition of 'frivolous'. Anything that doesn't fall under that good faith argument or existing law, however, is a bad idea to argue in court. But don't take my word for it. Read for yourself. Yes, I know that's only for the state of South Carolina, but that's the only link I can be bothered to Google up right now. I believe that most other jurisdictions use very similar language to describe what is not considered a frivolous argument.
"I personally think that the store doesn't need to posts a warning that the coffee is hot. Coffee is supposed to be hot (iced coffee not included). Its called personal responsibility."
- I also personally don't think that the store should post warnings that the coffee is hot.. I do however think that the corporation shouldn't unethically cut costs by keeping very, very hot coffee in a very, very useless cup.
Remember, the cup / coffee combination and the attitude of McDonalds was the real problem, the cup was cheaply enough made that it buckled under the temperature of the coffee (it was designed for drinks at a lot lower temperatures). They persisted in making the coffee X hot, and they persisted in having it in useless cups which couldn't handle that heat, and they persisted in ignoring the poor woman who got hurt because of their decision to a) boil coffe alot hotter than necessary and b) keeping it in cups which can't handle the heat and buckle under it.
I suggest reading up on this matter, I tell the facts poorly, but the McDonalds hot coffee suit was (to my surprise first I learned the _real_ facts) not a joke lawsuit.
Judging by the last time I had a drink there, I wouldn't be so sure.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it