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."
Not to mention the poster's ignorance of Bilski is showing. This looks nothing like a pure business method patent application, and would easily survive the machine-or-transformation test.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, just because many Slashdotters have engineering backgrounds doesn't immediately give them tremendous insight into everything. This should be evident from the fact that patent attorneys have this same engineering/science background plus legal knowledge.
That's not to say this is a good patent application. It's crummy. But as parent said, there's plenty of that, and this application poses no threat.
In short, if you have some meaningful argument against patents in principle, please present it. On the other hand, if the substance of that argument is, "Look, McDonald's applied for a patent on a method of making a sandwich, LOL" then I counter that you have not proved that a novel and non-obvious method of making a sandwich should not be patentable. You certainly haven't proved anything about this method, since you have read no more than the title. And failing to prove a specific case does not magically translate into proving the general proposition.
True enough zordak. What I think most people are beating around the bush here is that basically anyone who patents sandwich making is some kind of a buttmunching douchebag. It's a fucking sandwich.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
"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."
It is so easy to read that in two contradictory ways. While Gates was probably referring to anti-IP sentiment being an anti-property sentiment (hence communist), it is also possible to read it another way. All because of that word "incentive" and the quote's obvious link to copyright law rather than patent law. While IP may encourage people to create something in the first place, he is completely ignoring the bit that IP reduces the incentive to continue creating since the creator shifts into a protectionist mode. Not only does this protectionist mode reduce their own desire to innovate, but it reduces the desire of others to innovate (since you never know when you are going to be sued).
It is also worth noting that the word "communist" doesn't mean anything when it comes from Gates' mouth, since he doesn't seem to be able to differentiate between a communist and a libertarian.
It transforms something (a sandwich). That is the second prong of the "machine or transformation" test.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Listen, if you invent butter you can patent that. If you happen to spread it on a sandwich clockwise with a broad wooden butter knife, I don't think you should be able to patent that. I will forever be against "process" patents, because they're just plain silly. Hence, if McD wants to patent the "DEVICE FOR SANDWICH PREPARATION", fair enough, but a flow chart detailing the various things you do when you prepare a sandwich? Never.
The fact that you earn a living working for a patent office or law firm that specializes in IP doesn't convince me of the validity of your arguments, and neither does that paper of that partner at that firm of yours. The only thing that is written on Method/Process Patents in that paper is this:
Business method patents protect methods of doing practically
anything.114 - How to (1) run Priceline.com's reverse auction,115 sell magazine subscriptions,116
get customers to "round up" purchases to the nearest dollar.
Apart from that the paper you mention is a how-to of sorts, it does not delve into the ethical/philosophical discussion on whether patents / copyrights / trademarks actually motivate or protect "ye learned men" when they "write ye learned books" as Jefferson put it.
So basically your arguments against the original poster's arguments are horribly coloured by the fact that you earn your livelihood in that business, and instead of honestly discussing the philosophical merits of your views, you distract by pointing at a dumbed down "how-to" written by your boss.
That's jolly bad form, old chap. Jolly bad form indeed!