McDonalds Files To Patent Making a Sandwich 346
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."
Method (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Trollish article description is trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I don't make sandwiches (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Method (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks to me like a joke.
To me too. Problem is, this kind of stuff is all sorted out by lawyers, who don't have a sense of humor that they are aware of.
Key difference: (Score:2, Insightful)
Previous implementations of the so-called "sandwich" were typically composed of what would at least pass for actual food.
Re:Drive Through user patents coffee burning metho (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Trollish article description is trolling (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Save us, McDonald's! (Score:3, Insightful)
Bill Gates is misguided by greed. Obviously he fails to realize that patent reform would actually be good for Microsoft and even the whole rest of the computer software and hardware industries.
The problem now is that patents are used by companies the way that nuclear weapons are used by countries -- they are a weapon of last resort, and used more as a threat than for anything else.
A reform of patent law would probably mean that these companies could 'disarm,' in the end lowering their legal costs.
Re:Drive Through user patents coffee burning metho (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Method (Score:3, Insightful)
well if you file a ridiculous patent and it gets the bum's rush at the USPTO it just makes it that much more difficult for someone to file a patent to use against one of your business methods.
Claims vs Title (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
How Timely... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to thank Slashdot for once again bringing us timely information from.... wait for it... 2006.
Re:With a side of broken links... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Save us, McDonald's! (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:With a side of broken links... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Save us, McDonald's! (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who chooses to be a musician or artist for the money is a fool. (I am a musician)
The incentive is the applause, recognition and freedom of expression.
Secondly, anyone starting a career in the arts for money's sake and not because they enjoy creating art probably won't produce anything of merit anyway, making it even harder to make money.
There's a Vista joke in there somewhere...
Re:cheezburgers? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's no problem, the problem is to eat it and still have it.
Re:When I make mistakes, I try to learn from them. (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Safe! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm safe as well. None of my sandwich-making starts with taking a customer order [wipo.int].
Re:When I make mistakes, I try to learn from them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:With a side of broken links... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument begs the question. So I'm going to toss just one more example out, and if you and others still disagree, that's your business. Take McDonald's and obviousness out of the picture. Assume that Joe opens Joe's Burger Joint. Joe is brilliant with processes, and his sandwich making technique, whatever it is, is so efficient that anybody can pull up to the drive-thru, order a sandwich, pull around, and have a hot, fresh, tasty sandwich in hand immediately. No lines, no waiting. Now Joe is making money hand over fist because everybody knows that if you go to Joe's, there's no line, not even during the lunch rush, and the sandwiches are great. McDonald's is not lovin' it, because they are losing customers to Joe.
If you still think that Joe should not be entitled to a patent on his process---meaning that McDonald's is now free to rip him off, defeat the one advantage he has over their vast brand machine, and run him out of business---then you and I simply disagree. If, on the other hand, you think Joe should be rewarded with exclusive rights in his invention for a time (and fortunately, the patent term is still pretty reasonable), then your problem is not that a method of making a sandwich should not be statutory subject matter; it is that you think the McDonald's application is either not new or is obvious. Now, we can talk about novelty and non-obviousness, which are totally different question.