| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Time for another episode of "Federal Court"... |
| 2005-04-07 |
| These gotta be Clinton guys... Three federal judges yesterday questioned whether the method for creating a crustless, peanut butter and jelly sandwich is unique. Yep, it's just one life and death decision after another up here... The hearing, at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, was the latest round in J.M. Smucker Co.'s attempt to expand its patent on Uncrustables, frozen, disk-shaped peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that have been among the Orrville, Ohio, jam-maker's most successful products. We got one of these things for my niece and nephew when we were down at Disney. $6.50 a pop and they didn't finish them. So I guess the fact that they suck isn't pertinent to the argument. The three judges explored the difference between bread that is "smushed" versus "compressed," and pondered the idea of jelly "encapsulated" in peanut butter. One even questioned whether his wife violated Smucker's patent when she made lunch for their child. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is, as a disbarred Arkansas lawyer once said... There is no deadline for the court's decision, but lawyers in the case said it could take several months. I'll bet. Wonder what the rate is? Smucker obtained patent rights on the sandwich in 1999, and set out to expand them with new applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But a patent examiner handling the case rejected the company's requests. The Patent Office's appeals board upheld the decision, declaring the sealed sandwich wasn't new, and citing, among other things, a pastry cookbook that shows how to seal the edges of tarts and stuffed pasta. Johnson, get cracking on the research for that PB&J thing, will ya? Yesterday, Smucker lawyer, Robert Vickers of Fay, Sharpe, Fagan, Minnich & McKee LLP of Cleveland, argued that the sandwich's edge isn't made like the tarts or raviolis shown in the cookbook. Instead, he said, the bread retains its original characteristics but its edges are compressed. My niece does this every morning. I hope somebody from Wee, Fleecem, & Howe doesn't read Rantburg or she's in deep trouble. "So it's smushed!" Judge Raymond Clevenger III declared. "God, when I think of how many "campaign contributions" I had to make to get this job..." "It is sealed by compression, but it is not smushed," Mr. Vickers explained. "Four years of college, two years of law school, pass my boards, and I'm in Federal court arguing the meaning of "smushed"..." Mr. Vickers also said the sandwich is novel because the filling "encapsulates" jelly between two larger layers of peanut butter. But the judges weren't sure how the "encapsulated" filling makes the Smucker sandwich different from other versions. I move that we adjourn to another "bar" to ponder this perplexing question... At one point, another judge, Arthur Gajarsa, said his wife often squeezes together the sides of their child's peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to keep the filling form oozing out. "I'm afraid she might be infringing on your patent!" Really? You'll be hearing from us, your honor... A statement handed out by company representatives at yesterday's hearing says, "It wouldn't be fair to let another company simply copy the product and benefit from the hard work our people have invested." My niece is six. If you can see the imaginative stuff she does PB&J and choclate milk, you'd hire her now before Kraft scoops her up. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #10 This is the kind of insanity that our intellectual property laws have caused becuase the courts have expanded them so stupidly over the past decade. Time to flush them and start over. Limit copyrights to the original 25 year past the end of the authors life, or 25 years from first publication in the case of a company or corporation. Eliminate completely "business method" patents and software patents, as these are not used to protect an innovation but to close markets and permit monoplistic practices by companies that never produce anything but IP licenses lawsuits. Color me disgusted that something this obvious ever got granted a patent. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-04-07 5:27:46 PM |
| #9 This is the kind of insanity that our intellectual property laws have caused becuase the courts have expanded them so stupidly over the past decade. Time to flush them and start over. Limit copyrights to the original 25 year past the end of the authors life, or 25 years from first publication in the case of a company or corporation. Eliminate completely "business method" patents and software patents, as these are not used to protect an innovation but to close markets and permit monoplistic practices by companies that never produce anything but IP licenses lawsuits. Color me disgusted that something this obvious ever got granted a patent. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-04-07 5:27:46 PM |
| #8 As BigEric (4-1/2) says to me: "Pop! Pop! I don't care abou'dis stuff. Just gimme a spoon and d'jar of Peanut Butter." |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-04-07 7:09:38 PM |
| #7 That would be "lunch," ackshually. |
| Posted by: Darth VAda 2005-04-07 6:45:50 PM |
| #6 Gee, when I used to have nunch at my friend Tommy's house 40 years ago, his mom used to use a cookie cutter to remove the crust and seal the edges. So obviously, Smucker's patent is invalid on the basis of "prior art." |
| Posted by: Darth VAda 2005-04-07 6:27:34 PM |
| #5 Give me a nice multi-grained bread with some body to it (no foam bread, fer me), some freshly ground almond butter, and some NZ manuka honey, and you got yerself a righteous AB&H. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-04-07 6:02:17 PM |
| #4 Actually the past decade or so has already seen a dramatic contraction in the scope of protection afforded patentees. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-04-07 5:59:07 PM |
| #3 This is the kind of insanity that our intellectual property laws have caused becuase the courts have expanded them so stupidly over the past decade. Time to flush them and start over. Limit copyrights to the original 25 year past the end of the authors life, or 25 years from first publication in the case of a company or corporation. Eliminate completely "business method" patents and software patents, as these are not used to protect an innovation but to close markets and permit monoplistic practices by companies that never produce anything but IP licenses lawsuits. Color me disgusted that something this obvious ever got granted a patent. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-04-07 5:27:46 PM |
| #2 Oh this is nothing, just wait until someone sues on U.S. Pat. #6,213,778 .... |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-04-07 5:07:00 PM |
| #1 ROFL, tu! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-04-07 5:02:36 PM |