h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Right, so:

'It has been the food of monarchs and commoners ever since John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich, first pressed some meat between two slices of bread and took a bite. Billions of butties later, the fast-food giant McDonald's has set its sights on his invention. The company has filed patents in Europe and the US that claim the "method and apparatus for making a sandwich" as its intellectual property.

Patent application WO2006068865 relates to the "pre-assembly of sandwich components and simultaneous preparation of different parts of the same sandwich". It covers the "simultaneous toasting of a bread component" and heating a "meat and/or cheese filling". And it says the company has invented a way to add garnishes and condiments using a "sandwich assembly tool".'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1952246,00.html


But, Smuckers has already got a patent on the sandwich:

http://righttocreate.blogspot.com/2006/01/ridiculous-patent-peanut-butter-jelly.html


Does anyone want to enter into a discussion of patent law? Or would we all prefer, like me, to just laugh and shake our heads?

*Laughs and shakes head*

Yikes! I know *nothing* about patent law, but this sounds scary and/or crazy. Is it common to patent a process? If I accidentally duplicate the patented process while making a sandwich at home, would I be technically subject to prosecution for patent infringement?

And what about other processes? Where would one draw the line on which processes could be patented and which couldn't?

This will have to be laughed out of the office, surely? Wasn't there some nutter trying to patent the wheel/fire a few years back?

U.S. Patent law is a joke and is slowly killing off innovation, have a look at some of the stories here http://slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=155 to get an idea of the problem just in the tech sector...

*begins filing a patent for a 'specialised, specific, new method of spreading butter on bread' I do hope this is retrospectivly given to em, then they can get all teh royilities from us who've been making sandwichs for quite some time

If they're going to take away my sandwiches then I think I'll just have to go and infringe upon their Egg McMuffin. Mmm, delicious bacon & egg toastie.

I particularly liked the 'assembly tool' they've invented:

'The assembly tool contains a "cavity" into which the sandwich-maker places the garnish'

I believe it's to be called the 'McSpoon'.

The Muckspoon? A stablehand's shovel?

Well, I have a patent pending, so I've gone through the process. In my experience these media stories are blown out of proportion.

1st, there's this little thing called "prior art". Is there any record of any kind describing what you're trying to patent? Would it be common knowledge to an "expert" in the field? If yes to either of these, then you can't patent it.

The US patent office is simply deluged continually with people trying to patent stuff, and sometimes ridiculousness slips through. Yes, the system definitely needs fixing - there are serious flaws - but the ones described here are trivial mistakes, and not the real* problems with the system.


*a real problem with the system is, for example, when a drug maker extends the patent on their medicine beyond the normal 17 (20?) years by having patented the shape of the pill, the bottle, the color, etc. and using that to claim "infringement" if the competition uses anything similar.

There was a ruling from a US court that a patent may be applied for for "anything under the sun that is made by man". That was in respect of a genetically modified bacterium.

(Yes, my medicinal chemistry course included a section on US and EU patent law. They're surprisingly different.)

TRiG.

The wheel was patented by an Australian gentleman as a 'Circular transportation facilitation device'.

That's in A973677, in the 'Technology' section.

>>"There was a ruling from a US court that a patent may be applied for for "anything under the sun that is made by man". That was in respect of a genetically modified bacterium."

Wasn't there a case of someone patenting traditionally-grown varieties of beans from Central/South America? Patenting something made largely or wholly by other people seems to be a gross distortion of the system.

Personally, I'd take the view that if a large company tries to patent something that really isn't novel, and aggressively defends it, they should be open to serious punitive damages, since what they are doing is entirely against the spirit of patents, which is to encourage innovation by making it worthwhile.

A vaguely topical link

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/29/supremes_make_sense_of_patents/

Indeed, instead of patenting inventions you can now patent discoveries in some places. Which may mean you can patent a gene that causes breast cancer, and so anyone that tries to cure it or do anything concerning that gene has to pay you. Horrible.

not sure that's such a well-established idea. I think people have patented those things, not sure that it will ever, ever hold up...

*briefly considers patenting air...*






*realizes how difficult it would be to collect royalties...*




*decides to patent cold, instead*

What about patenting patents?

It is rather like a girlfriend I had who jokingly said she should patent her make up, why not, clowns did. But this led to a series of silly jokes and nasty ones too, about her face and make up, so the idea was dropped.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/11/30/2348249.shtml
"The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to rewrite the standard of what makes a patent obvious."