Backyard Chefs Fired Up Over Infrared Grills 229
Vicissidude writes "With the expiration of a key patent, major gas-grill manufacturers have scrambled to bring infrared cooking to the masses. The grills are still powered by propane and have traditional gas burners that heat mostly by convection — or hot air. But they also can cook foods with radiant heat generated by one or more infrared burners. Char-Broil says its advanced burners operate at 450 to 900 degrees, hotter than the 450 to 750 degrees of standard gas burners. And unlike charcoal, which can require 20 to 30 minutes to reach its 700-degree cooking temperature, heat from the infrared burners can be adjusted quickly. Bill Best, founder of Thermal Electric of Columbia, S.C., developed the technology in the 1960s, primarily to give automakers a faster way to dry the paint on cars."
Re:YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the expiration of a key patent, major gas-grill manufacturers, including market leader Char-Broil, have scrambled to bring infrared cooking to the masses with models in the $500 to $1,000 range. Previously, such grills cost as much as $5,000.
So Bill Best invented the grill, patented it and used his temporary monopoly to sell the grill for a high price and (presumably) made lots of money from his invention. Why shouldn't he be allowed to do this? It's not like an infra-red grill is a basic human necessity.
Now the patent has expired, other companies are free to improve it and sell it for cheaper. Fine. That's why patents have a limited term of 20 years (and it's exactly why copyright should have a much shorter term too).
Re:YRO? (Score:4, Insightful)
The article is worded badly. The original patent was created in the 1960s and expired in 2000. Then after it expired they started trying to figure out how to use it in a grill and it still took them 7 years to make it cheap enough for home owners.
The article doesn't seem to really go into WHY they waited for it to expire though. It could be that they couldn't use it anyways for all we know.
Gee (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is not why he should be "allowed" to do this, but why other people's freedoms should be restricted to facilitate this. Remember, a patent doesn't give the inventor rights, it takes away rights from everyone but the inventor.
And in this case, it might not have been a bad call. However, the fact still remains that, instead of spurring on the invention of consumer-level infra-red grills, this patent held back development until such a time that the patent was no longer an issue.
Re:YRO? (Score:3, Insightful)
The article didn't say for sure if the original company was willing to license the technology out at rates low enough to allow affordable grills, nor did it say how much they wanted for the licenses.
I would suspect that it's very possible that it was the actual construction cost and not the patent cost that was prohibitive, but it's hard for me to be swayed either way on this particular case given how little information there is.
Re:What's wrong with patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents do encourage inventors to share their ideas, but they were never meant to go into society's hands concurrent with issuing. Without a limited patent duration, you have two possible realities: either the company gets a perpetual stranglehold on that technology because government has no business limiting it (the Libertarian approach) or you have companies terrified of introducing their discovery because if cost them millions of dollars to figure it out, and cheap knockoffs for a fraction of the price would appear on the market nearly instantaneously (the "information wants to be free" approach).
Neither one is particularly beneficial for society or companies. This sounds exactly like evidence for why patents work and are an important part of the innovation cycle. It also demonstrates that companies like to hide behind patents keeping their "great products" from the market when in fact they haven't really figured out all the details (i.e. a smoke screen for their vaporware products). If it was the patent holding back innovation, this article would have been written in 2000. There have certainly been infrared products offered for sale for several years now, legally, but beyond the reach of most customers. If you think that's because of the patent and not because of the newness and narrowness of the market, though, you're kidding yourself.
Adapting a technology to a new market and new packaging costs a lot of money and involves a lot of trial and error. Any patent licensing on the method is just one small part of that.
Yeah, at first glance it sounds like a great idea for "the rest of us" to get things 15-20 years faster. But the flip side is, "what's in it for the creator/investors?" Investors deserve to get something out of the deal, too. If that's a decade or two of exclusive use to generate profits, which are in turn invested in new products (and corporate accounting blunders), so be it.
Yes, we could force companies to have profit limits, spending requirements, and compulsory licensing of their creations. We could also eliminate hunger entirely by dictating food production and distribution. It's only a matter of what you want to give up to do that. Part of living in a "free" society is understanding that there's a good and a bad side to that freedom, and you can't just pick and choose the good parts without accepting the less-than-ideal consequences.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end I will admit that a true smoke is the way to go for ultimate flavor, but for me I can get most of the flavor, most of the fun, and less hassle with a propane grill.
Cheers.
Re:unlike charcoal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
One day someone will invent a grill that cooks food in some manner resembling an oven broiler - and your question will have meaning. Until then, grilling cooks food significantly differently that a broiler. Among other things, a broiler does not produce smoke from the food dripping. A broiler also tends to operate in a 'damp' enviroment (because an oven is a closed box), while a grill tends to be dryer.
Yes, I grill for flavor - and propane provides it in spades. I own a charcoal grill too, and I choose between them depending on the effect I want and what I'm grilling.
Someone who grills over nothing but one kind of flavored charcoal is the one missing the point. It's kinda like pouring ketchup over everything, because it all ends up tasting the same.
Re:YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay, a hotter grill! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard enough to find a steak house capable of delivering a truly rare steak that isn't lukewarm, and without warmer grills there's no way I'll bother eating a grilled steak.
Re:YRO? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YRO? (Score:1, Insightful)
The inventor spent money and time coming up with this. If he made the effort to invent this, but afterwards everyone simply took his idea and didn't pay him anything, what incentive was there for him to put in the effort in the first place?
Patents are there as an inceventive to the original inventors to allow them to recoup their initial investments before everyone starts copying them. If patents didn't exist then anyone could copy/take their work without giving anything in return. Your only incentive without patents would be simply that you're making the world a "better" place.
For some people this incentive is enough, but if you've paid money to create something, and you need to feed your family and pay employees, then it probably isn't.
It's their "blood, sweat, and tears" that went into making it, why shouldn't they be rewarded for their creation?