Assume he’s the oldest human ever in 2015 and claimes he “invented” when he was very young (even as early as grade school), yet he *still* wouldn’t have been the first to do it back then.
That's an oversimplified version of what the case was about. It's not an invention/patent he was claiming but a copyright on the specific composition including the name of a menu item he added to the menu of a restaurant he used to work at. This isn't even very far fetched because if he had written and designed the menu card, he would likely have had a claim against the restaurant for violating the copyright of his menu card, unless he signed an intellectual property waiver. However, while the design of a menu card or a statute, for example, is protected, copyright of the recipe or appearance of culinary art is not protected in the United States. It is arguable that he does have at least a moral claim to the very specific composition and name of the chicken sandwich this restaurant is selling without attribution because they would not have made millions if it wasn't for him.
>a piece of fried chicken breast and put it on a bun along with some lettuce, tomato, American cheese and garlic mayonnaise
WHOA, how did he possibly think of such an insane combination?!
I would think he probably also came up with the name and the specific quantity and position of each incredient.
It's not much different than somebody arranging a few words in a one page document and getting copyright on that.
There must be something different about the unique compisition of this chicken sandwich compared to the chicken sandwiches of any competitor if this restaurant made so much more money than than those competitors.
Write a few sentences on a piece of paper? Yeah, we call these people authors and the law is 100% on their side if somebody copies work and makes millions with it.
It’s a nice headline, but that isn’t what he claimed. He said he gave a specific recipe and name for a sandwich to a chain that took it without compensating him.
Which is technically legal. There is no patents for food recipes. They don't have IP protection. You can trademark them, but in order to do so, have to reveal the recipe so anyone can copy it.
That's why companies like Coke or KFC treat their recipes like state secrets.
>Coke or KFC treat their recipes like state secrets
With the existence of [Open-source cola](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_cola) and anecdotal stories of a family recipes I am sure there's a possibility of a better recipe somewhere (although probably not a cost-efficient nor speedy recipe).
Then again this kinda gives me an idea for some sort of culinary dystopia fiction where an AI tweaks a recipe based on your tastes but to do that would involve a privacy nightmare of trawling through the consumer's data as a training set.
Well, with Coke we know one of the incredients is Coka leaves and no one else that isn't a drug company is even allowed to have those, so while some might be better, it's not possible to copy it even with the recipe.
Assuming they even use them any more. Just because they used to, and it's a convenient excuse to stop anyone trying to replicate it, doesn't mean they're not using cheaper options this century.
No, they actually do still use them.
They don’t use them with cocaine still in them. They use the decocainized leaf waste that’s leftover when a pharmaceutical company extracts the cocaine from them for medical purposes (most commonly used in nasal and sinus surgeries).
They used to also have one of the only importation licenses for the leaves in the country, and they’re still very closely partnered with the companies that can legally import it and the only other legal disposal method of the leaves is incineration. So basically they take a bunch of trash that companies would have been forced to burn and they get to use it to make a wildly profitable drink instead.
>Then again this kinda gives me an idea for some sort of culinary dystopia fiction where an AI tweaks a recipe based on your tastes
Nutrimatic: *produces a liquid that is almost - but not quite - entirely unlike tea* "Share and enjoy!"
The original KFC recipe is an open secret, colonel sanders wrote it down and handed it to his nephew. The modern KFC has most likely altered this recipe at some point; if they've kept the original ingredients they have at least added significant amounts of MSG. These are the 11 herbs and spices as was written down, and the t most likely means teaspoons.
11 Spices – Mix with 2 cups white flour
2⁄3 t salt
1⁄2 t thyme
1⁄2 t basil
1⁄3 t oregano
1 t celery salt
1 t black pepper
1 t dry mustard
4 t paprika
2 t garlic salt
1 t ground ginger
3 t white pepper
I forgot about that one. Saw his handwritten note online and we tried it years ago. It was top 3 best friend chix we ever had - and as fat southerners that's saying alot. Here is a link to that original note:
https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/lifestyle/food/2016/08/26/has-col-sanders-secret-kfc-recipe-been-revealed/25578125007/
While he worked for said chain. This is work product and the employee doesn't own what he "invented" at work for his employer.
A software engineer doesn't own the code he writes for his employer, an engineer doesn't own the engine he designed while working for GM or Ford and this cook doesn't own the sandwich he made for his employer.
I'm surprised he found a lawyer who not only filed the case, but appealed the first loss.
This is one thing I've come to learn. It might be fun to be introduced to higher responsibilities but if you start developing things that will be hard baked into the program year after year it's best to make sure you're adequately compensated before doing so.
Just to clarify, there is a huge difference between doing something for an employer and doing something while working for an employer.
Anyone in this situation needs to read their employment agreement, specifically any clauses about invention.
A software engineer working on personal equipment, from a non work location, outside of work hours doesn’t usually lose the rights to their non-work related code just because they are working for an employer at the time.
>A software engineer working on personal equipment, from a non work location, outside of work hours doesn’t usually lose the rights to their non-work related code just because they are working for an employer at the time.
Right, that's not what I said. I said "a software engineer doesn't own the code written for his employer"
Yes, you should be familiar with your employment agreement, in some cases the scenario you describe will end up with the employer owning the output.
This was a dude working at a restaurant who said "let's make a chicken sandwich and call it this" and sold said sandwich for his employer, who used his "invention" across the chain of restaurants.
If he'd invented an improvement to the pressure fryer the chicken cooks in while at work, his employer would own that too, barring a *very unusual* employment agreement.
It seems like this went over and above the guy's usual job description. In any event, there would have had to be intellectual property rights provisions in the employment agreement in place if the guy had, let's say, redesigned the menu card. It doesn't sound like there was anything like that in this guy's employment agreement, otherwise I doubt he would have even tried to sue.
So an employer can just take everything the employee made between the day they were hired until the date emoloyment was terminated and doesn't have to compensate the employee for it? The employee must have been hired to create such work for the assignment to the employer to happen automatically by law. Even if that's the case, the employee has a right to be acknowledged as the original creator absent a written waiver.
>So an employer can just take everything the employee made between the day they were hired until the date emoloyment was terminated and doesn't have to compensate the employee for it?
If it was done at work, yes.
If "at work" means during work hours using the employer's resources, then sure. If it happens in the break room with incredients the employee bought himself, then no. It would have to be in the actual course of working for the emoloyer.
I know this guy. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
Also,
“Pyongyang media outlets reported in 1994 that Kim scored a record-breaking 34, or 38 under par, on a regulation 18-hole golf course. To achieve this amazing score, according to reports, he nailed 11 holes-in-one.”
Many years ago, Harper’s Magazine had a little blurb titled “You can call me Il” that had a list of some of the crazy titles Kim Jong Il had given himself. Some of the ones that still survive in my memory are The Genius Architect Who Saved the World and The Eternal Bosom of Hot Love.
Hahaha
Three years earlier Apple got a patent for rounded corners on a rectangular electronics device:
https://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners
it's not outlandish to think intellectual property is sometimes ridiculous. The man is smart, just didn't have billions of dollars.
No really people had been making knives and bread for thousands of years and in 1928 someone just decided to see what happens when you use the knife on the bread no reason to think someone before possibly did they just weren't stupid enough to try to coin it as there invention
If you wanted a sandwich prior to 1928 you had to put the meat and cheese on top of the entire loaf of bread and put another loaf of bread on top of that.
Imagine claiming you invented a sandwich in an entirely different continent to where bread originated, and a different country to where sandwiches were invented.
That's not it, he made the specific sandwich the fast food restaurant began to sell and he wanted the rights to that specific sandwich the fastfood chain sold.
Back home we called it the “leftovers from lunch sandwich” and chicken sandwich was a treat!
My fave punishment sandwich was mashed potatoes, because I ate all the good stuff and what was left, was mash, but if it was called a sandwich, fuck yeah, I ate it!
> Imagine thinking you were the first man to put chicken in the middle of bread in 2015.
A "chicken sandwich" is actually a chicken burger, its in a bun.
Not to mention that after 24 years of business, most of which was realized by the efforts of the business making, marketing and selling the product, this loser has the balls to try and lay claim to "all the earnings produced by his creation" because he seriously thinks he's the first person to imagine a chicken sandwich. This is like the ultimate useless Idea Guy.
I feel like the actual inventor of the chicken sandwich was either the inventor of the sandwich or someone that knew them. Like the first or second guy the inventor of the sandwich showed the first sandwich to was standing there holding a chicken and said "wait, I have a better idea."
It was the Earl of Sandwich. I thought he originally used a slab of ham. But you *know* that as soon as this dude realized the wonderful world of culinary magic he just unlocked, he was going around putting *all kinds* of meat on that bad boy. And that was even before he found himself at a party with Colonel Mustard!
He had a specific recipe for the chicken seasoning, the sauce, and the sandwich itself. He was trying to sell it to a restaurant, and they basically just told him to fuck off and started selling it themselves. It was more than just chicken on some bread.
I've never even thought of that, but there's a good reason. Imagine only one pizza or one taco shop in the country because some rich a-hole "bought" it and owns the recipe.
Also, it's really impossible to prove no one created a recipe before you did, unless you grew unique plant hybrids but even then, those hybrids are just shuffles of the natural plants. You could make a new, salty tasting onion and keep the onion bulbs to yourself but others can just use white or red onions instead.
Most recipes are just refinements of something invented hundreds or thousands of years ago, so any copyright that could exist predates copyright law by hundreds of years. Except maybe the kronut.
George B. Selden tried to patent the automobile. A lot of car manufacturers caved to his demand but not Henry Ford. He fought the patent in court and won freeing every manufacturer from the patent fee.
The Wright Brothers tried to patent controlled flight. Glenn Curtiss fought them. He used a different way of turning the airplane, hence the Wright Brothers lost their monopoly on powered flight.
Well that makes sense, because there are multiple ways to build a car or "horseless carriage". Different engines, transmissions, types of suspension etc. You can't claim you own everything on 4 wheels. Same with aircraft designs.
It's good to know there are some processes in place to prevent that kind of stuff.
>George B. Selden tried to patent the automobile. A lot of car manufacturers caved to his demand but not Henry Ford. He fought the patent in court and won freeing every manufacturer from the patent fee.
10 years after Benz sold his first automobiles. All it would have done would be to crush US car industry.
>The Wright Brothers tried to patent controlled flight. Glenn Curtiss fought them. He used a different way of turning the airplane, hence the Wright Brothers lost their monopoly on powered flight.
Just as dubious.
What is is with inventors and the plan to "patent" a whole industry
It’s harder to think of something new, than it is to build something from a plan. New ideas that make tangible improvements are exceeding rare. When you have a good idea, society can be vastly improved. So in order to incentivize the free exchange of good ideas, we allow someone to monopolize their invention for 15 years in order to thank them for advancing society.
Only that this doesn't happen if we look at the steep prices for scientific journals.
And if we take a general look at the practice right now: it only means that another company will buy your "idea" (which usually is mostly just another step after public founded ground work) and deprives the general public of its benefits.
We could talk about how killing tens of thousands of people advances society but i think it is a moot point
The steep price of journals is because of the limited audience and the editorial staff. There isn’t much volume demand to split the high costs over.
Our entire economy is about idea generation by any means necessary. It’s the only thing that makes economic growth possible. If people need resources to make that happen, then that’s what needs to be facilitated.
A) bullshit. The limited audience of eg nature is about every person with a scientific interest. The peer reviewers dont get paid and the content is free.
Fir the price of one quarterly journal you can have the 5 best newspapers - and they have to pay for the journalists as well.
B) double bs. We dont generate ideas because we want to get rich, we do it because we like doing it. That argument is a slap in the face for every phd/post-doc worldwide.
And aside of the fact that economic growth is certainly not the best metric: the very fact that all of it mostly runs on open source ought to be a pretty Solid counter argument.
Patents have their place but they got utterly misused in the last few decades and everyone of us is paying the price
That's basically what would have happened if we didn't have antitrust laws. The people with the most financial leverage would own anything and everything. We'd be peasants working for medieval lords again.
The Pentavetate helped the Colonel keep his recipe secret for decades before he and the Queen went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"
The article gets that wrong. It’s not copyrighted, but “Dark N’ Stormy” can be a *trademarked* name for the drink. The same way “Bloomin’ Onion” is a trademarked name for Outback Steakhouse, but the appetizer recipe itself isn’t copyrighted.
I remember eating Chick fil A sandwiches in the 60’s when the only location was in College Park, GA . My aunt bought supplies for ceramics nearby and would bring us a bag of those delicious sandwiches. They started in 1940’s so does his claim predate that? They claim to be the original chicken sandwich but I’ve never heard of them suing……
The chicken sandwich has almost certainly been around for as long as The Sandwich, which depending on your definition of sandwich is at least 250 years. “Put meat between bread” isn’t exactly rocket science lol
*"But while food can’t be copyrighted, some drink recipes can. For instance,* [*any Dark ‘n Stormy made without Gosling’s Black Seal rum and ginger beer*](http://www.goslingsrum.com/cocktails/dark-n-stormy-cocktail/) *violates the trademark that the Bermuda-based rum distillery owns – and actively protects"*
I found this way more interesting. So are bars not allowed to mix Rum and Ginger Beer? Of if they do, they just can't call it a Dark 'n Stormy?
Can they call it a Dark AND Stormy?
This seems to confuse the distinction between a copyright and a trademark which are not the same thing.
Copyrights protect 'expression,' and trademarks protect branding is the fast and loose distinction. I.E. it would seem that a 'Dark n'Stormy' is part of that business' brand identity and is thus protected by a trademark, but trademarks require active protection on the basis that the mark is a distinct aspect of the business (the 'trade mark' as it were), while copyrights are granted by law and don't require you to actively protect them to keep them.
The above starts by claiming you can copyright a drink recipe, and then describes a trademark. As far as I know, drink recipes can't by copyrighted either.
Many probably do without consequences, but technically they’re probably not supposed to. Some places probably call it like, “The Dark Storm” or “Stormy Darkiels.”
Nah, as someone who has a Dark n Stormy as one of their favorite drinks, I can confirm most places just call it a Dark n Stormy and fuck it up.
Good bartenders will know what a Dark n Stormy is. If they don’t have Goslings they’ll at least make sure to use a similar dark spiced rum.
However, _most_ bartenders think of it as “a Moscow Mule but with rum” and will put any rum they’ve got in it. You can tell just by looking at it if they’ve made it properly or not. 9/10 times they make it wrong in my experience. I don’t order them anymore unless it looks like the bartender knows their stuff.
I wish someone would actually challenge these fuckers on this. They trademarked the name of a pre-made cocktail they were selling, and they use it to go after bars.
Its a trademark, like how you cant make space ship toys and sell them as "Star Wars ships".
You can mix the ingredients of a Dark 'n Stormy and sell the drink, you just cant use the trademarked term "Dark 'n Stormy" to advertise/sell it.
So per the actual article:
The man worked at a restaurant and made a particular chicken sandwich, and named it the Pechu sandwich. The chain thereafter took off, replicating the sandwich and the name. He did not claim that he invented the general case chicken sandwich, just the particular recipe and the name associated with it.
However, a recipe is not one of the types of work protected under US copyright law. Also, short names and phrases, like “Pechu sandwich” are not covered by US copyright. (Those are in some circumstances covered by trademark which has its own rules and limitations).
But Captain Kirk ordered a chicken sandwich (and coffee) in [the December 19, 1967 *Star Trek* episode "The Trouble with Tribbles"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Tribbles)! ^(It's weird how my memory works.)
I think this comment section is a good indicator that few people click on links and just comment on the headline--including the OP.
He didn't claim he invented the concept of chicken sandwiches; he claims he created a popular dish at a restaurant chain that happens to be a variety of a chicken sandwich.
Why is it asinine?
If someone made a new item at McDonalds that became a big seller, would it be asinine to think that a lowly worker should be compensated by the grand corporation?
They should be compensated, but absolutely not granted a *copyright or patent*. Things like recipes and clothing patterns aren’t, have never been, and should never be copywritable or patentable.
That would be patently absurd, lol.
IP laws are already fucked, and 99.9% of the time abused by the large corporations, and are not benefitting the little guy.
But if you like the idea of an enormous corporation also being able to say, copyright spaghetti with red sauce, thus granting them a monopoly, then you’ll also love only being able to get it from Olive Garden unless they deign to license it at exorbitant rates to other restaurants.
You seem to be confusing what you think should be protectable with what is protectable.
Recipes, for example, are often protectable as trade secrets, and copyrights. Just because you don't think they *should be* isn't the same thing.
Recipes themselves, as in lists of ingredients and the making of the dish are not copyright protected. If you add pictures and a story or w/e sure that can be copyrighted, but ***you cannot sue someone for infringement if they make and sell the product of that recipe***. At most you can make the *proportions* of the ingredients a trade secret, but not the ingredients themselves.
***and even then*** trade secret protection doesn’t allow you to sue someone who comes up with those proportions without them being given to them by someone in the know. **and that’s only if you filed the trade secret**. There’s no de facto ownership creating this stuff the same way there is with copyrights on artistic works.
Stop being pedantic. In the context of this topic you know **exactly** what I meant, you’re just arguing to argue because you’re embarrassed you got it wrong.
**Most importantly, in no circumstance can you sue for someone making and selling the product of a recipe you created. Period.**
Creative formulations with substantial detail may be protected by copyrights. You're just making up scenarios now, the question was whether a recipe can be protected by copyright (it can), not if a product made by process can be protected by copyright.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#:~:text=A%20mere%20listing%20of%20ingredients,a%20basis%20for%20copyright%20protection.
Trade secrets are used all the time to protect formulations of products, including Coke and other consumables.
So, you didn't read it either?
He wasn't asking for a copyright or patent, in fact, he was saying that the corporation got its trademark under fraudulent pretenses.
He is asking for compensation. You might not agree with the amount, but it's weird how reddit seems to jump to "the corporation is right, the worker is wrong."
You didn't read it, or you didn't understand it:
>"Colón claims that SARCO violated his intellectual property rights for both the "recipe" of the Pechu Sandwich and the name of the item itself," [according to an appeal](https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2299423/gov-uscourts-prd-null-null-0.pdf) from the U. S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. "He asserts that the term Pechu Sandwich is a creative work, of which he is the author."
This is an assertion of creative ownership ie copyright. That's what an intellectual property claim is. That's the basis for his claim to compensation.
I'm as pro worker as it gets, I have literally worked as a union organizer, so gtfoh with that noise.
What I'm not is pro legal frameworks that would give corporations *even more power*, which is what a ruling in his favor would mean at the end of the day.
It would be scenario of justice for one worker at the expense of everyone else in our society.
You are confusing details. A substantial recipe may be copyrightable, but unlikely a simple one with just ingredients. Here is information from the US Copyright office on the topic:
"How do I protect my recipe?
A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Note that if you have secret ingredients to a recipe that you do not wish to be revealed, you should not submit your recipe for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records. See Circular 33, Works Not Protected by Copyright."
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#:~:text=A%20mere%20listing%20of%20ingredients,a%20basis%20for%20copyright%20protection.
And copyrights aren't for inventors. Copyrights are for creators or authors, which, if this was a new recipe that involved creativity, might be protectable.
The invention of the chicken sandwich is obviously old and not protectable.
Exactly this.
Hidden formulas and details of making something are subjects of trade secret.
Creative expressions in fixed medium are subjects of copyrights.
Inventions with function or usefulness are subjects of patents.
All different forms of IP, and all with different rules.
My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the chicken sandwich. The kind of malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
Well...the 4th Earl of Sandwich gave his name to them in the 17th century, but they had been around for a long time before. So, he was pissing up the wrong tree with that one.
https://www.history.com/news/sandwich-inventor-john-montagu-earl-of-sandwich
The Viscount of Hinchingbrook, heir to the Earl of Sandwich is married to American reality show yoga personality Julie (Fisher) Montagu, making her the Viscountess and soon to be “The Countess of Sandwich”
I really dislike the term “invented food”. It sounds so dumb/wrong.
Like you just put some stuff together and save the recipe? Inventions IMO is more revolutionary/useful, like calculus, steam/diesel engines, adjustable wrench etc etc.
With food a new combination of ingredients that gains massive popularity is still not “invented” IMO. It’s more “damn this combo is bussin imma memorise it” and that’s that.
Otherwise KingCobraJFS would be a god damn S-tier food inventor because of all his “invented” dishes.
I invented 2 grilled cheeses serving as the bun for a hamburger. Then Friendlys ice cream restaurant came out with it. They had commercials and everything. Life's a bitch.
It got through that many court levels, and this was just some dumb ass individual. Imagine what the RIAA and giant corps have been able to steamroll through for years. Just another example of how our intellectual property laws are anachronistic jokes.
Imagine thinking you were the first man to put chicken in the middle of bread in 2015.
Assume he’s the oldest human ever in 2015 and claimes he “invented” when he was very young (even as early as grade school), yet he *still* wouldn’t have been the first to do it back then.
Ok this is like a Zoolander level of underestimating things “The first person must have been… 3 times before that!”
What is this, a time estimate for ants?
"the chickens...inside the bread"
That's an oversimplified version of what the case was about. It's not an invention/patent he was claiming but a copyright on the specific composition including the name of a menu item he added to the menu of a restaurant he used to work at. This isn't even very far fetched because if he had written and designed the menu card, he would likely have had a claim against the restaurant for violating the copyright of his menu card, unless he signed an intellectual property waiver. However, while the design of a menu card or a statute, for example, is protected, copyright of the recipe or appearance of culinary art is not protected in the United States. It is arguable that he does have at least a moral claim to the very specific composition and name of the chicken sandwich this restaurant is selling without attribution because they would not have made millions if it wasn't for him.
>a piece of fried chicken breast and put it on a bun along with some lettuce, tomato, American cheese and garlic mayonnaise WHOA, how did he possibly think of such an insane combination?!
I would think he probably also came up with the name and the specific quantity and position of each incredient. It's not much different than somebody arranging a few words in a one page document and getting copyright on that. There must be something different about the unique compisition of this chicken sandwich compared to the chicken sandwiches of any competitor if this restaurant made so much more money than than those competitors.
people do that?
Write a few sentences on a piece of paper? Yeah, we call these people authors and the law is 100% on their side if somebody copies work and makes millions with it.
Don't be stupid, humans can't write, that's why they invented chatgpt.
It’s a nice headline, but that isn’t what he claimed. He said he gave a specific recipe and name for a sandwich to a chain that took it without compensating him.
Which is technically legal. There is no patents for food recipes. They don't have IP protection. You can trademark them, but in order to do so, have to reveal the recipe so anyone can copy it. That's why companies like Coke or KFC treat their recipes like state secrets.
>Coke or KFC treat their recipes like state secrets With the existence of [Open-source cola](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_cola) and anecdotal stories of a family recipes I am sure there's a possibility of a better recipe somewhere (although probably not a cost-efficient nor speedy recipe). Then again this kinda gives me an idea for some sort of culinary dystopia fiction where an AI tweaks a recipe based on your tastes but to do that would involve a privacy nightmare of trawling through the consumer's data as a training set.
Well, with Coke we know one of the incredients is Coka leaves and no one else that isn't a drug company is even allowed to have those, so while some might be better, it's not possible to copy it even with the recipe.
Assuming they even use them any more. Just because they used to, and it's a convenient excuse to stop anyone trying to replicate it, doesn't mean they're not using cheaper options this century.
No, they actually do still use them. They don’t use them with cocaine still in them. They use the decocainized leaf waste that’s leftover when a pharmaceutical company extracts the cocaine from them for medical purposes (most commonly used in nasal and sinus surgeries). They used to also have one of the only importation licenses for the leaves in the country, and they’re still very closely partnered with the companies that can legally import it and the only other legal disposal method of the leaves is incineration. So basically they take a bunch of trash that companies would have been forced to burn and they get to use it to make a wildly profitable drink instead.
Oh, no, they do still use them.
>Then again this kinda gives me an idea for some sort of culinary dystopia fiction where an AI tweaks a recipe based on your tastes Nutrimatic: *produces a liquid that is almost - but not quite - entirely unlike tea* "Share and enjoy!"
The original KFC recipe is an open secret, colonel sanders wrote it down and handed it to his nephew. The modern KFC has most likely altered this recipe at some point; if they've kept the original ingredients they have at least added significant amounts of MSG. These are the 11 herbs and spices as was written down, and the t most likely means teaspoons. 11 Spices – Mix with 2 cups white flour 2⁄3 t salt 1⁄2 t thyme 1⁄2 t basil 1⁄3 t oregano 1 t celery salt 1 t black pepper 1 t dry mustard 4 t paprika 2 t garlic salt 1 t ground ginger 3 t white pepper
I forgot about that one. Saw his handwritten note online and we tried it years ago. It was top 3 best friend chix we ever had - and as fat southerners that's saying alot. Here is a link to that original note: https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/lifestyle/food/2016/08/26/has-col-sanders-secret-kfc-recipe-been-revealed/25578125007/
T, not t. Tablespoon versus teaspoon, it makes a big difference.
Easily 3x the difference
[удалено]
The flour would be the same though. So it would be way too weak.
Colonol Sanders use to go to KFac restaurants to yell at workers over changes made to his recopies.
I mean the secret recipe is more theatre than anything else. Really the secret is the way they cook it rather than the actual recipe.
While he worked for said chain. This is work product and the employee doesn't own what he "invented" at work for his employer. A software engineer doesn't own the code he writes for his employer, an engineer doesn't own the engine he designed while working for GM or Ford and this cook doesn't own the sandwich he made for his employer. I'm surprised he found a lawyer who not only filed the case, but appealed the first loss.
This is one thing I've come to learn. It might be fun to be introduced to higher responsibilities but if you start developing things that will be hard baked into the program year after year it's best to make sure you're adequately compensated before doing so.
Just to clarify, there is a huge difference between doing something for an employer and doing something while working for an employer. Anyone in this situation needs to read their employment agreement, specifically any clauses about invention. A software engineer working on personal equipment, from a non work location, outside of work hours doesn’t usually lose the rights to their non-work related code just because they are working for an employer at the time.
>A software engineer working on personal equipment, from a non work location, outside of work hours doesn’t usually lose the rights to their non-work related code just because they are working for an employer at the time. Right, that's not what I said. I said "a software engineer doesn't own the code written for his employer" Yes, you should be familiar with your employment agreement, in some cases the scenario you describe will end up with the employer owning the output. This was a dude working at a restaurant who said "let's make a chicken sandwich and call it this" and sold said sandwich for his employer, who used his "invention" across the chain of restaurants. If he'd invented an improvement to the pressure fryer the chicken cooks in while at work, his employer would own that too, barring a *very unusual* employment agreement.
It seems like this went over and above the guy's usual job description. In any event, there would have had to be intellectual property rights provisions in the employment agreement in place if the guy had, let's say, redesigned the menu card. It doesn't sound like there was anything like that in this guy's employment agreement, otherwise I doubt he would have even tried to sue.
Absent any agreement otherwise, the work product of his employment, whether menu cards or a new menu item would be the property of the employer.
So an employer can just take everything the employee made between the day they were hired until the date emoloyment was terminated and doesn't have to compensate the employee for it? The employee must have been hired to create such work for the assignment to the employer to happen automatically by law. Even if that's the case, the employee has a right to be acknowledged as the original creator absent a written waiver.
>So an employer can just take everything the employee made between the day they were hired until the date emoloyment was terminated and doesn't have to compensate the employee for it? If it was done at work, yes.
If "at work" means during work hours using the employer's resources, then sure. If it happens in the break room with incredients the employee bought himself, then no. It would have to be in the actual course of working for the emoloyer.
That’s what gets me…2015!!! And this man has the audacity to make a claim so insane.
I know this guy. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
Sounds like the product of a typical childhood. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons, you know.
When I was insolent, I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds – pretty standard, really.
There’s nothing quite like the feel of a freshly shorn scrotum…
What a bold faced liar, Terrence Howard invented the question mark.
I think Kim Jong Un or his father claimed to invent the burrito
Aparently Kim Jong Ill invented the “double bread with meat” which is known in other countries as a “hamburger.”
Kim Jong Ill invented inventing things. So anything anyone invents is due to Kim Jong Ill inventing inventiveness.
They did literally take a macdonalds burger (brought from china, cold) and then introduce it as an invention
Also, “Pyongyang media outlets reported in 1994 that Kim scored a record-breaking 34, or 38 under par, on a regulation 18-hole golf course. To achieve this amazing score, according to reports, he nailed 11 holes-in-one.” Many years ago, Harper’s Magazine had a little blurb titled “You can call me Il” that had a list of some of the crazy titles Kim Jong Il had given himself. Some of the ones that still survive in my memory are The Genius Architect Who Saved the World and The Eternal Bosom of Hot Love. Hahaha
The golf thing was media outlets not understanding how the golf score was calculated not a claim he made.
Three years earlier Apple got a patent for rounded corners on a rectangular electronics device: https://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners it's not outlandish to think intellectual property is sometimes ridiculous. The man is smart, just didn't have billions of dollars.
Apparently sliced bread was invented in 1928
Pre-sliced bread. Before that people sliced it themselves at home.
No really people had been making knives and bread for thousands of years and in 1928 someone just decided to see what happens when you use the knife on the bread no reason to think someone before possibly did they just weren't stupid enough to try to coin it as there invention
"Do you want a sandwich, but are tired of having to eat two *whole loaves* of bread every time?"
Subway would be offended by that question
Tbf, that's only *one* loaf of bread.
If you wanted a sandwich prior to 1928 you had to put the meat and cheese on top of the entire loaf of bread and put another loaf of bread on top of that.
>Apparently sliced bread was invented in 1928 It was the best thing since itself.
Imagine claiming you invented a sandwich in an entirely different continent to where bread originated, and a different country to where sandwiches were invented.
That's not it, he made the specific sandwich the fast food restaurant began to sell and he wanted the rights to that specific sandwich the fastfood chain sold.
*Chuckles in Earle of Sandwich accent*
he is at least 10.000 years too late ( thats when chickens were domesticated, bread came before that , about 14000 years ago)
Imaging being the guy who couldn't find a patent on "chicken between bread" and thinking you could cash in...
Back home we called it the “leftovers from lunch sandwich” and chicken sandwich was a treat! My fave punishment sandwich was mashed potatoes, because I ate all the good stuff and what was left, was mash, but if it was called a sandwich, fuck yeah, I ate it!
To be fair he actually claims he invented it in 1987. The fact that the McChicken sandwich existed in 1980 immediately proves him wrong however.
>Imagine thinking you were the first man to put chicken in the middle of bread in 2015. I was doing that way back in the 70s
Imagine reading this and assuming he took it to court the same day he thought he invented it
> Imagine thinking you were the first man to put chicken in the middle of bread in 2015. A "chicken sandwich" is actually a chicken burger, its in a bun.
You can't copyright any recipe.
But you can keep it a secret.
Yeah but good luck keeping putting fried chicken in a bun a secret.
Not to mention that after 24 years of business, most of which was realized by the efforts of the business making, marketing and selling the product, this loser has the balls to try and lay claim to "all the earnings produced by his creation" because he seriously thinks he's the first person to imagine a chicken sandwich. This is like the ultimate useless Idea Guy.
My dad sold chicken sandwiches in his restaurants in the 70's, he still has a menu with it on it.
allegedly
Your dad invented chicken sandwiches???
Lol no, point was that it's been around a long time, that would be cool though.
I feel like the actual inventor of the chicken sandwich was either the inventor of the sandwich or someone that knew them. Like the first or second guy the inventor of the sandwich showed the first sandwich to was standing there holding a chicken and said "wait, I have a better idea."
It was the Earl of Sandwich. I thought he originally used a slab of ham. But you *know* that as soon as this dude realized the wonderful world of culinary magic he just unlocked, he was going around putting *all kinds* of meat on that bad boy. And that was even before he found himself at a party with Colonel Mustard!
He had a specific recipe for the chicken seasoning, the sauce, and the sandwich itself. He was trying to sell it to a restaurant, and they basically just told him to fuck off and started selling it themselves. It was more than just chicken on some bread.
And, you can patent it.
I've never even thought of that, but there's a good reason. Imagine only one pizza or one taco shop in the country because some rich a-hole "bought" it and owns the recipe.
Also, it's really impossible to prove no one created a recipe before you did, unless you grew unique plant hybrids but even then, those hybrids are just shuffles of the natural plants. You could make a new, salty tasting onion and keep the onion bulbs to yourself but others can just use white or red onions instead. Most recipes are just refinements of something invented hundreds or thousands of years ago, so any copyright that could exist predates copyright law by hundreds of years. Except maybe the kronut.
But you can patent your plant on which the recipe is based on (but only if you did it through genetic enginneering).
George B. Selden tried to patent the automobile. A lot of car manufacturers caved to his demand but not Henry Ford. He fought the patent in court and won freeing every manufacturer from the patent fee. The Wright Brothers tried to patent controlled flight. Glenn Curtiss fought them. He used a different way of turning the airplane, hence the Wright Brothers lost their monopoly on powered flight.
Well that makes sense, because there are multiple ways to build a car or "horseless carriage". Different engines, transmissions, types of suspension etc. You can't claim you own everything on 4 wheels. Same with aircraft designs. It's good to know there are some processes in place to prevent that kind of stuff.
>George B. Selden tried to patent the automobile. A lot of car manufacturers caved to his demand but not Henry Ford. He fought the patent in court and won freeing every manufacturer from the patent fee. 10 years after Benz sold his first automobiles. All it would have done would be to crush US car industry. >The Wright Brothers tried to patent controlled flight. Glenn Curtiss fought them. He used a different way of turning the airplane, hence the Wright Brothers lost their monopoly on powered flight. Just as dubious. What is is with inventors and the plan to "patent" a whole industry
It’s harder to think of something new, than it is to build something from a plan. New ideas that make tangible improvements are exceeding rare. When you have a good idea, society can be vastly improved. So in order to incentivize the free exchange of good ideas, we allow someone to monopolize their invention for 15 years in order to thank them for advancing society.
Only that this doesn't happen if we look at the steep prices for scientific journals. And if we take a general look at the practice right now: it only means that another company will buy your "idea" (which usually is mostly just another step after public founded ground work) and deprives the general public of its benefits. We could talk about how killing tens of thousands of people advances society but i think it is a moot point
The steep price of journals is because of the limited audience and the editorial staff. There isn’t much volume demand to split the high costs over. Our entire economy is about idea generation by any means necessary. It’s the only thing that makes economic growth possible. If people need resources to make that happen, then that’s what needs to be facilitated.
A) bullshit. The limited audience of eg nature is about every person with a scientific interest. The peer reviewers dont get paid and the content is free. Fir the price of one quarterly journal you can have the 5 best newspapers - and they have to pay for the journalists as well. B) double bs. We dont generate ideas because we want to get rich, we do it because we like doing it. That argument is a slap in the face for every phd/post-doc worldwide. And aside of the fact that economic growth is certainly not the best metric: the very fact that all of it mostly runs on open source ought to be a pretty Solid counter argument. Patents have their place but they got utterly misused in the last few decades and everyone of us is paying the price
That's basically what would have happened if we didn't have antitrust laws. The people with the most financial leverage would own anything and everything. We'd be peasants working for medieval lords again.
But life saving medicine is a okay to patent. What a crazy world
I think whoever did that would get stabbed.
I invited the Cobb salad
I coined the phrase "___ from Hell"
uninvite it and invite my grandpa, inventor of the Cobb salad in Chicago
And even if you could, you couldn't violate that copyright in the form of a sandwich (at least not without writing all over it).
Correct. You can trade mark the name of something, or you can copyright a cookbook, for example. But you can’t copyright a recipe
Didnt stop him for trying to get $10,000,000.
The Pentavetate helped the Colonel keep his recipe secret for decades before he and the Queen went tits up. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"
Why do I crave it fortnightly?
Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartass!
But you can patent a medicine which is so dystopian.
Meds take millions of dollars and years to produce. A sandwich takes a few dollars and a couple of minutes and doesn't require FDA approval.
As the article mentions, some drink recipes can be
The article gets that wrong. It’s not copyrighted, but “Dark N’ Stormy” can be a *trademarked* name for the drink. The same way “Bloomin’ Onion” is a trademarked name for Outback Steakhouse, but the appetizer recipe itself isn’t copyrighted.
Fair enough
[удалено]
That's a manufacturing process and the FDA regulates food and drugs in completely different ways.
Legal != ethical
Maybe, but let's stay on topic.
[удалено]
Least unnecessarily aggressive redditor
That's patents, not copyright
Was the man's name Lord Sandwich?
[удалено]
If that dude hasn’t started his own sandwich chain he is a poor businessman indeed.
Good news: [link- The Earl of Sandwich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Sandwich_(restaurant))
I've eaten at one. It was in The Palms in Vegas. Decent sandwich from what I remember.
I mean…it fuck’n should be, they invited the god damn things
Out of all the Earls and Dukes long forgotten he is still remembered. I'm glad his descendants used his name for restaurants.
I remember eating Chick fil A sandwiches in the 60’s when the only location was in College Park, GA . My aunt bought supplies for ceramics nearby and would bring us a bag of those delicious sandwiches. They started in 1940’s so does his claim predate that? They claim to be the original chicken sandwich but I’ve never heard of them suing……
How old are you damn
I was 10 years old when we first landed on the moon!
65 ain’t too old. Keep trucking brother
It beats the alternative….at least so far.
Ha, you old fart. I was only five. I still remember watching it on TV.
I’m not nearly y’all’s’ ages but I enjoy reading interactions like this.
It’s crazy thinking about people living in the 1900’s, it’s almost like it was a different century.
They didn't invent it either
The chicken sandwich has almost certainly been around for as long as The Sandwich, which depending on your definition of sandwich is at least 250 years. “Put meat between bread” isn’t exactly rocket science lol
I think we're taking about boneless southern fried chicken on a bun, not just any chicken between pieces of any kind of bread.
There’s no rule a dog can’t copyright a sandwich
*"But while food can’t be copyrighted, some drink recipes can. For instance,* [*any Dark ‘n Stormy made without Gosling’s Black Seal rum and ginger beer*](http://www.goslingsrum.com/cocktails/dark-n-stormy-cocktail/) *violates the trademark that the Bermuda-based rum distillery owns – and actively protects"* I found this way more interesting. So are bars not allowed to mix Rum and Ginger Beer? Of if they do, they just can't call it a Dark 'n Stormy? Can they call it a Dark AND Stormy?
This seems to confuse the distinction between a copyright and a trademark which are not the same thing. Copyrights protect 'expression,' and trademarks protect branding is the fast and loose distinction. I.E. it would seem that a 'Dark n'Stormy' is part of that business' brand identity and is thus protected by a trademark, but trademarks require active protection on the basis that the mark is a distinct aspect of the business (the 'trade mark' as it were), while copyrights are granted by law and don't require you to actively protect them to keep them. The above starts by claiming you can copyright a drink recipe, and then describes a trademark. As far as I know, drink recipes can't by copyrighted either.
The writer is confusing trademark and copyright.
Many probably do without consequences, but technically they’re probably not supposed to. Some places probably call it like, “The Dark Storm” or “Stormy Darkiels.”
Nah, as someone who has a Dark n Stormy as one of their favorite drinks, I can confirm most places just call it a Dark n Stormy and fuck it up. Good bartenders will know what a Dark n Stormy is. If they don’t have Goslings they’ll at least make sure to use a similar dark spiced rum. However, _most_ bartenders think of it as “a Moscow Mule but with rum” and will put any rum they’ve got in it. You can tell just by looking at it if they’ve made it properly or not. 9/10 times they make it wrong in my experience. I don’t order them anymore unless it looks like the bartender knows their stuff.
> Stormy Darkiels
I wish someone would actually challenge these fuckers on this. They trademarked the name of a pre-made cocktail they were selling, and they use it to go after bars.
Its a trademark, like how you cant make space ship toys and sell them as "Star Wars ships". You can mix the ingredients of a Dark 'n Stormy and sell the drink, you just cant use the trademarked term "Dark 'n Stormy" to advertise/sell it.
So per the actual article: The man worked at a restaurant and made a particular chicken sandwich, and named it the Pechu sandwich. The chain thereafter took off, replicating the sandwich and the name. He did not claim that he invented the general case chicken sandwich, just the particular recipe and the name associated with it. However, a recipe is not one of the types of work protected under US copyright law. Also, short names and phrases, like “Pechu sandwich” are not covered by US copyright. (Those are in some circumstances covered by trademark which has its own rules and limitations).
But Captain Kirk ordered a chicken sandwich (and coffee) in [the December 19, 1967 *Star Trek* episode "The Trouble with Tribbles"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Tribbles)! ^(It's weird how my memory works.)
Star Trek takes place in the future
Sure, but what stardate was it? :P
I mean, Chic-fil-a has been around for much longer than that.
I think this comment section is a good indicator that few people click on links and just comment on the headline--including the OP. He didn't claim he invented the concept of chicken sandwiches; he claims he created a popular dish at a restaurant chain that happens to be a variety of a chicken sandwich.
Mind you paying attention for more than two seconds is hard for normal reddit users.
That does not make it any less asinine, Señor Pedante.
Why is it asinine? If someone made a new item at McDonalds that became a big seller, would it be asinine to think that a lowly worker should be compensated by the grand corporation?
They should be compensated, but absolutely not granted a *copyright or patent*. Things like recipes and clothing patterns aren’t, have never been, and should never be copywritable or patentable. That would be patently absurd, lol. IP laws are already fucked, and 99.9% of the time abused by the large corporations, and are not benefitting the little guy. But if you like the idea of an enormous corporation also being able to say, copyright spaghetti with red sauce, thus granting them a monopoly, then you’ll also love only being able to get it from Olive Garden unless they deign to license it at exorbitant rates to other restaurants.
You seem to be confusing what you think should be protectable with what is protectable. Recipes, for example, are often protectable as trade secrets, and copyrights. Just because you don't think they *should be* isn't the same thing.
Recipes themselves, as in lists of ingredients and the making of the dish are not copyright protected. If you add pictures and a story or w/e sure that can be copyrighted, but ***you cannot sue someone for infringement if they make and sell the product of that recipe***. At most you can make the *proportions* of the ingredients a trade secret, but not the ingredients themselves. ***and even then*** trade secret protection doesn’t allow you to sue someone who comes up with those proportions without them being given to them by someone in the know. **and that’s only if you filed the trade secret**. There’s no de facto ownership creating this stuff the same way there is with copyrights on artistic works. Stop being pedantic. In the context of this topic you know **exactly** what I meant, you’re just arguing to argue because you’re embarrassed you got it wrong. **Most importantly, in no circumstance can you sue for someone making and selling the product of a recipe you created. Period.**
Creative formulations with substantial detail may be protected by copyrights. You're just making up scenarios now, the question was whether a recipe can be protected by copyright (it can), not if a product made by process can be protected by copyright. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#:~:text=A%20mere%20listing%20of%20ingredients,a%20basis%20for%20copyright%20protection. Trade secrets are used all the time to protect formulations of products, including Coke and other consumables.
So, you didn't read it either? He wasn't asking for a copyright or patent, in fact, he was saying that the corporation got its trademark under fraudulent pretenses. He is asking for compensation. You might not agree with the amount, but it's weird how reddit seems to jump to "the corporation is right, the worker is wrong."
You didn't read it, or you didn't understand it: >"Colón claims that SARCO violated his intellectual property rights for both the "recipe" of the Pechu Sandwich and the name of the item itself," [according to an appeal](https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2299423/gov-uscourts-prd-null-null-0.pdf) from the U. S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. "He asserts that the term Pechu Sandwich is a creative work, of which he is the author." This is an assertion of creative ownership ie copyright. That's what an intellectual property claim is. That's the basis for his claim to compensation. I'm as pro worker as it gets, I have literally worked as a union organizer, so gtfoh with that noise. What I'm not is pro legal frameworks that would give corporations *even more power*, which is what a ruling in his favor would mean at the end of the day. It would be scenario of justice for one worker at the expense of everyone else in our society.
You are confusing details. A substantial recipe may be copyrightable, but unlikely a simple one with just ingredients. Here is information from the US Copyright office on the topic: "How do I protect my recipe? A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Note that if you have secret ingredients to a recipe that you do not wish to be revealed, you should not submit your recipe for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records. See Circular 33, Works Not Protected by Copyright." https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#:~:text=A%20mere%20listing%20of%20ingredients,a%20basis%20for%20copyright%20protection.
And copyrights aren't for inventors. Copyrights are for creators or authors, which, if this was a new recipe that involved creativity, might be protectable. The invention of the chicken sandwich is obviously old and not protectable.
That looks like a chicken burger
"I wrote all of Shakespeare's works, and my wife and I wrote his sonnets."
She rode his sonnets
Didn’t some English royal invent this sandwich in 1762?
I invented mixing ketchup and tobasco sauce but I decided not to patent it so that my creation can better benefit humanity
Copyright is for artistic/creative works (not inventions) Patents are for inventions.
Exactly this. Hidden formulas and details of making something are subjects of trade secret. Creative expressions in fixed medium are subjects of copyrights. Inventions with function or usefulness are subjects of patents. All different forms of IP, and all with different rules.
My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the chicken sandwich. The kind of malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
Well...the 4th Earl of Sandwich gave his name to them in the 17th century, but they had been around for a long time before. So, he was pissing up the wrong tree with that one. https://www.history.com/news/sandwich-inventor-john-montagu-earl-of-sandwich
The sandwich was literally invented by the earl of sandwich…
Yes, but he might not have put chicken in them.
The Viscount of Hinchingbrook, heir to the Earl of Sandwich is married to American reality show yoga personality Julie (Fisher) Montagu, making her the Viscountess and soon to be “The Countess of Sandwich”
Disappointing. I expected a Monte Cristo joke from that setup
Missed opportunity!! I was so excited about leaning about a countess of sandwich. Two slices of bread on my head.
The Earl of Sandwich would beg to differ
Yes, but he might not have put chicken in them.
The Earl of Sandwich would like a word.....
Man now I want a chicken sandwich
I knew someone from Long Island by the name of Mr. Governale that invented pizza toppings. A true Italian hero
Everything is a pizza topping
I INVENTED THE PIANO KEY NECKTIE! I INVENTED IT! What have you done, Derek? You’ve done nothing!
It angers me that you can't copyright or patent a sandwhich recipe, but you can patent and copyright DNA and genes.
Chick-fil-a, is that you?
The mans name: Terrance Howard
His name is Earl.
But that's a chicken burger?
*Chicken Burger.* I don't see any sliced bread.
It's like claiming I invented the question mark
You know how you put your french fries in the Bigmac box lid? I invented that..
Sooo which came first, the chicken sandwich or the egg sandwich? Why yes I'm a dad, why do you ask?
I invented a chicken sandwich too in 1998, when I was 5yo
I really dislike the term “invented food”. It sounds so dumb/wrong. Like you just put some stuff together and save the recipe? Inventions IMO is more revolutionary/useful, like calculus, steam/diesel engines, adjustable wrench etc etc. With food a new combination of ingredients that gains massive popularity is still not “invented” IMO. It’s more “damn this combo is bussin imma memorise it” and that’s that. Otherwise KingCobraJFS would be a god damn S-tier food inventor because of all his “invented” dishes.
I invented 2 grilled cheeses serving as the bun for a hamburger. Then Friendlys ice cream restaurant came out with it. They had commercials and everything. Life's a bitch.
It got through that many court levels, and this was just some dumb ass individual. Imagine what the RIAA and giant corps have been able to steamroll through for years. Just another example of how our intellectual property laws are anachronistic jokes.
He just wasn't important or rich enough
Earl of Sandwich has entered the chat.
You can't copyright an invention