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."
Safe! (Score:5, Funny)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm safe as well. None of my sandwich-making starts with taking a customer order [wipo.int].
Re:Safe! (Score:5, Funny)
cheezburgers? (Score:5, Funny)
I can has cheezburger patent?
hai! (Score:5, Funny)
im in ur patent office
approvin teh obveeyus
Re:hai! (Score:4, Interesting)
Thank you.
Pished as I am (nice bottle btw) I can't help but think this is obvious.
What we need is a typing device that can interpret it's drunken owners keystrokes so that a comment like this doesn't take nearly 5 in to type.
The real flow chart: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re:cheezburgers? (Score:5, Funny)
I haz a prior art. What I do wif it?
Re:cheezburgers? (Score:5, Funny)
eat it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's no problem, the problem is to eat it and still have it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No,
They have a *priapic art
With a side of broken links... (Score:5, Informative)
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... (Score:5, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
When I make mistakes, I try to learn from them. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [eff.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem I see is you're conflating two complaints. If you think it's obvious, fine. You gave some reasonable grounds for why you think some limitations might be obvious. But that's not the same thing as saying, "They're trying to patent sandwiches!!1!1 They can't do that!" There's no reason an improved method for making a sandwich can't be statutory subject matter. It's a method of making something. That is exactly what method patents are supposed to be. If it also happens to be new and non-obvi
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Having said that, I HAVE read the application and the method is the same one that every fast food company, every sandwich shop and, I would guess, the vast majority of restaurants of any size uses to make sandwiches. Why would McDonald's even apply for a patent with such obvious and huge stores of prior art. Even if the patent is approved it will never stand up in court. Unless they pan to patent troll mom and pop restaurants that can't afford lawyers.
Re: (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 maki
and here I was wondering how to make a sandwich (Score:5, Funny)
Save us, McDonald's! (Score:5, Interesting)
"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: (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: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: (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:and here I was wondering how to make a sandwich (Score:5, Funny)
Drive Through user patents coffee burning method. (Score:2)
'McDonalds Drive Trough user patents method for burning self with hot coffee.'?
Re: (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:Drive Through user patents coffee burning metho (Score:5, Informative)
--excerpt from Rorschach's Journal, 1985
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...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 p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [lectlaw.com], 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.
Re:Drive Through user patents coffee burning metho (Score:5, Informative)
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 [cdc.gov] 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.
Re:Drive Through user patents coffee burning metho (Score:4, Funny)
McDonalds is now serving their food in a trough?
I see they have finally acknowledged their food is swill.
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: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Humour, along with honesty is removed as part of a law degree isnt it?
Re:Method (Score:4, Funny)
A. By death.
Q. And by whose death was it terminated?
Source. [freemaninstitute.com]
Re:Method (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Can you really patent food preparation? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about employees that come up with their own style of work flow?
You must not be familiar with McDonalds, there is no improvising. Just like how you can't buy a fucking plastic pizza cutter from Papa Johns because you threw yours away that one night before going to Papa Murphys for pizza...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I worked at McDonalds like about 40 years ago and we did special orders all of the time
Trollish article description is trolling (Score:5, Informative)
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 (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of said chaff, though, is not supported by legal teams bigger than many mid-size companies backed by assets of almost $30 billion [cnn.com].
This may become a bigger thing. I plan to stay tuned.
Stainless Steel Rat has Prior Art! (Score:3, Interesting)
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 rob
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose (in the US) you could reject under 112, first paragraph. I wouldn't know, since I don't write claims that sloppily.
Re:Trollish article description is trolling (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize you can file whatever you want with the PTO and, as long as it meets basic filing requirements and you send them your money, it will publish, right?
You do also realize that the mere publication has no legal effect unless the application subsequently issues as a patent, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Yeh, he knows which side his bread is buttered!
My way (Score:2, Funny)
If it includes holding the pickle and holding the lettuce, there's prior art.
Published 30 years ago... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I don't make sandwiches (Score:2, Insightful)
Additional Steps... (Score:3, Funny)
If yes, have fewer than 5 seconds elapsed?
If yes, pick up and continue with procedure...
Note to non-Americans (Score:2)
Americans refer "burgers" as "sandwiches".. reserving the word "burger" to refer to just the patty.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Americans refer "burgers" as "sandwiches".. reserving the word "burger" to refer to just the patty.
Speaking as a life-long American, no, we don't. America has dialect regions and I've only lived in three, but I've never thought of things this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. The point is that some Americans refer to those meat wrapped in bread things you get at McDonalds as "sandwiches". Which confuses the hell out of other English speaking people who visit your country.
"Can I get a Big Mac please?"
"Small, medium or large?"
"Huh? No, I just want a Big Mac."
"You just want the sandwich?"
"The what? I just want a fucking Big Mac, ok?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, as an America, when I went over to England my family took me to Burger King right away. The menu was completely different, and many terms seemed foreign (dip pots?) but I could immediately discern what everything meant. There are idiosyncrasies in English between the States and England, but people should be able to figure them out. It is after all, the same language.
Re: (Score:2)
A Big Mac is a Big Mac, a specific burger. And they weren't asking you the size of the sandwich. McDonalds meals have SIZES FOR THE MEALS which dictate the size of fries and drink. You didn't understand the question being asked you, and in turn you assume all Americans are stupid.
For shame, I routinely enjoy your posts and consider you an intelligent poster here.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? I knew they were asking me for the size of the meal. That's why I said I only wanted the Big Mac. To acknowledge my request the clerk asked me if I only wanted "the sandwich", which is the point of this discussion. No-one else in the English speaking world calls them sandwiches, not even at McDonalds. I didn't say anyone was stupid. It's just confusing for someone who wasn't brought up in the US to have to relearn that sandwiches have anything to do with burgers. Burgers are not a subset of sand
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be like if someone said to you "You just want the shoe?" There's no connection between the concept of a Big Mac and a sandwich in the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The confusion in that particular situation was exacerbated by the fact that he was clearly trying to up-sell me to a meal when all I wanted was the burger. When you're already experiencing culture shock, having someone pretend they don't understand you is the last thing you need.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's a lot harder for adults to acquire semantic categories, so you should be impressed that I even got it half right.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just to confuse you further, in the UK and Australia, we refer to anything on a Bun as a "burger". So, for example, we say "Chicken Burger", "Fish Burger" (even if the fish isn't "burger shaped"), etc. In the UK, however, people will often refer to the patty as a "burger" whereas we vary rarely do that here in Australia.. it's typically "burger patty". I order a "fish burger" in the UK and got what Australians would call a "fish cake". Where I live, we will refer to a burger shaped piece of potato that
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends highly on the context. Language is not always black and white.
McDonald's and friends push the "sandwich" moniker since it's easier to include fish/chicken items while talking, and also it makes them sound fancier.
For most Americans, the term sandwich does not, by default, include hamburgers. However, the two are similar enough such that sandwich, when used in a broad context, can refer to any sandwich-like object.
For your second point, yes, sometimes "burger" may only refer to the patty. T
Re: (Score:2)
Burgers are a subset of sandwiches.
Apparatus? (Score:2)
The "tool" is a plate.
Um, In Re Bilski is a US decision; may not apply. (Score:2)
The patent is a patent application to the World Intellectual Property Organization. I'm unclear if In Re Bilski [uscourts.gov] 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) p
That's nothing, Valve made blueprints (Score:2)
http://www.teamfortress2.de/gfx/screenshots/tf2/tf2_sandvich.jpg [teamfortress2.de]
They even show the health benefits of each food group!
It's a sandwich making gadget, not a process (Score:5, Informative)
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.
So Rotten Ronnies lawyered up, eh? (Score:2)
McDonald's [wikia.com] 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.
Since this is McDonald's we're talking about (Score:2)
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.
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.
Breakdown..... (Score:3, Funny)
"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.....
Historic Tragedies (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you pay taxes?
Re:So What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What's next, outsource the drive-through window person overseas?
Where I live(NOVA), they already have. I spent 5 minutes arguing over what I ordered with the guy in the drive thru only to realize that (in his almost passable version of English) we were both reciting the items correctly. At that point, I apologized and told him to cancel the order, my rational being that if his friends thought I was just being difficult, I would get "extra" condiments on the burgers.(just see "Waiting" http://www.imdb.com/ti [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, there's standard, and there's extra-crispy.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
actually, been there done that [usatoday.com]
(not yet overseas)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's debatable whether or not a speech recognition program would do a better job.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't possibly be worse.
Re: (Score:2)
If, as I suspect, this is outcome from the deli sandwich tests in the US, they may have just decided they didn't care after deciding not to get into that business.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, he had his cold.