Patterico's Pontifications

2/19/2007

Tyranny of Patent Law – Part III [Patenting Food Recepies]

Filed under: Court Decisions,General,Law,Public Policy — Justin Levine @ 5:31 pm

[posted by Justin Levine] 

Imagine that large Pizza Chain X develops a new recipe for making pizza by combining a thin crust, a small dash of Tobasco in the tomato sauce, a blend of 2 cheeses, heating it for 10 minutes at 450 degrees, and then heating it an additional 10 minutes at 375 degrees.  

Should another mom and pop pizza place be able to use the same recipe? Or should Chain X have a legally enforced monopoly on how other people use their own kitchens for the next couple of decades? What if the other chain merely adjusts the oven temperature by 5 degrees or so? Would that make enough of a difference?

What about the notion of simply granting a lengthy patent to the first inventor of pizza altogether – thereby eliminating any notion of competition in order to reward his inventiveness? A single pizza chain to serve the entire country….After all, if we don’t amply reward the inventor of the pizza with a state enforced monopoly on the recipe, then we will be threatening the very incentive to create new foods in the first place, right? We need to protect this guy from more efficient pizza makers who can make similar tasting dishes at much lower prices.

Sound far fetched?? Perhaps. But not nearly as much as you may think.  

[Hat-tip: Courthousenews.com]

This should serves as a good challenge for those who claim (falsely, in my view) that there nothing at all incompatible with free market capitalism and broad intellectual property schemes.

Part II of the Tyranny of Patent Law here.

[posted by Justin Levine]

Can A Person Be Successfully Sued For “Abusing Their Celebrity Status”?

Filed under: General,Law,Miscellaneous — Justin Levine @ 5:00 pm

We will soon find out.

[posted by Justin Levine]

L.A. Times Ignores Iranian Fauxtography?

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 3:21 pm

Charles Johnson says that they have. I have absolutely no basis for knowing whether Charles is right, so I’ll just pass along the link in the spirit of open-source distribution of information.

P.S. Please keep in mind that if Charles turns out to be wrong, the preceding will be treated by the lefties as an unqualified endorsement of Charles’s post. In the meantime, they will treat is as an example of the irresponsibility of the right blogosphere in passing along unconfirmed stories. Heads we lose, tails they win.

Unless, of course, Charles is right . . . in which case, gentlemen, NONE OF THIS EVER HAPPENED.

UPDATE: Ace doesn’t see the photoshopping. His first commenter says it’s a badly labeled inset.

I’m on a Treo and couldn’t possibly tell, even if I had the required expertise — which I don’t.

I think I made this pretty clear in the main post, but please: keep in mind that Charles’s post could be a giant dud, as alleged media scandals sometimes are.

UPDATE x2: Also, to make it clear, Charles appears to be saying, not that the paper published fauxtography, but that the paper is giving credence to Iranian claims despite the publication elsewhere of fauxtography supporting the claim. Thanks to Wesson for the clarification. I’m deleting the words “Falls for” from the headline and substituting “Ignores.”

DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — Oscar Juarez (Vols. VIII and IX)

Filed under: Crime,General,Immigration — DRJ @ 7:46 am

Just one witness today – Oscar Juarez, a Border Patrol agent who received immunity in exchange for his testimony – but he was on the stand for almost 2 days and the summary is lengthy. Included are several excerpts of Juarez’s testimony, not only because it’s important to this case but also because I suspect his testimony shows in a real way how the border works.

If that’s not enough, the exchanges between the witness and the lawyers were often intense. Instead of the lengthy bench conferences that we’ve seen up to now, this was all about the lawyers and the witness. By legal standards, this was high drama.

PS – There were 3 references to O.J. Simpson in this testimony. I’ve included 2 of them. Bonus points (sorry – no actual prize will be awarded) to the first commenter who finds them.

(more…)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1808 secs.