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."

Safe!

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

Re:Safe!

Just like a bunch of /.ers. First they want to pirate songs they don't own licenses for and now they want to make sandwiches without licensing the process from Mickey Ds.

Re:Safe!

i've always preferred open sandwiches myself.

cheezburgers?

I can has cheezburger patent?

hai!

im in ur patent office
approvin teh obveeyus

Re:cheezburgers?

I haz a prior art. What I do wif it?

Re:cheezburgers?

eat it

With a side of broken links...

The broken link was meant to go here [patentlyo.com]. 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 [eff.org]

Re:With a side of broken links...

Respectfully, a broken link was the least of the problems with that summary. Either you are woefully uninformed about IP (which seriously harms the credibility of your little crusade), or you are deliberately misleading people. If you are going to crusade against patents, you ought to have a basic understanding of them. You should know what gives the patent scope (the claims, not the title). And you clearly have either not read Bilski at all, or you did not comprehend a single word of it. Bilski has no bearing on a method for making a sandwich. Bilski does not say "all patents that Slashdot anti-IP trolls dislike are now invalid."

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.

Re:With a side of broken links...

How does Bilski not apply here? The sandwich making process they list in their claims is not tied to a particular device, but is implemented by human hands. I have not admittedly, read the whole decision, but the 'must be tied to a particular device' part seems pretty straightforward.

Re:With a side of broken links...

It transforms something (a sandwich). That is the second prong of the "machine or transformation" test.

Re:With a side of broken links...

Zordak wrote:

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

and here I was wondering how to make a sandwich

I was just stacking bread without asking myself the tough questions like McDonalds did. My paper hat is off to them.

Save us, McDonald's!

"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.

Re:Save us, McDonald's!

"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:and here I was wondering how to make a sandwich

Not even McDonalds remembered to sudo make that sandwich... Obligatory XKCD Reference: http://xkcd.com/149/ [xkcd.com]

Trollish article description is trolling

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.

Re:Trollish article description is trolling

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.

Prior Art

The Earl of Sandwich called, and he wants a slice.

Re:Prior Art

...and this patent was filed three years ago and published two years ago. Oh wait, the article in the Guardian was published two years ago too. Did I accidentally get so bored as to click "yesterday" over seven hundred times... or is it a slow news day? :-)

Published 30 years ago...

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.

It's a sandwich making gadget, not a process

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.

Re:So What?

Until they ask for a bailout citing "home cooking is killing the restraunt industry"

Re:Method

Methods are statutory subject matter, which means they're patentable in principle, as long as they result in a physical change. They don't even necessarily have to involve a tool at all. Those claims are perfectly valid (though maybe not patentable due to prior art). Business methods aren't necessarily patentable, because they're generally mental processes. The difference seems to be confusing a lot of people.

Re:Drive Through user patents coffee burning metho

"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