Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Food taste 'not protected by copyright' rules EU court

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: Food taste 'not protected by copyright' rules EU court

#41

Post by anticensor »

simonh wrote: post #40
anticensor wrote: post #39

That is not a problem. They would invent a chemical footprint IP right to cover.

Even assuming it can be specified precisely enough, they would have to ensure their own product always fell within the footprint, and if the rival product deviated even slightly from it - but not enough to taste significantly different - they would be fine. But of course to work to do all this would be fantastically expensive in practice, which is a whole other major problem,

I think you can describe a group or mixture of chemicals in a chemical footprint in its particular chemical properties, for example, "an alkane chain of 80-85 carbons with an alcohol bound on carbon no. 21 and an ethyl-keto bond on second to the last carbon". Does not have to single out a chemical.

Re: Food taste 'not protected by copyright' rules EU court

#42

Post by ElBarto »

lixtra wrote: post #37

This is surprising since food is one of the oldest subjects of “IP” in Europe: > [Sybaris around 700 BC] pioneered the concept of intellectual property to ensure that cooks could exclusively profit from their signature dishes for a whole year. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybaris

Cooking recipes aren't protected as far as I remember so it would have been surprising to protect the end result.

Re: Food taste 'not protected by copyright' rules EU court

#43

Post by beatgammit »

ElBarto wrote: post #42
lixtra wrote: post #37

This is surprising since food is one of the oldest subjects of “IP” in Europe: > [Sybaris around 700 BC] pioneered the concept of intellectual property to ensure that cooks could exclusively profit from their signature dishes for a whole year. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybaris

Cooking recipes aren't protected as far as I remember so it would have been surprising to protect the end result.

That seems to be true for the most part, but if your recipe contains a lengthy narrative or something, the work as a whole could be covered by copyright[1].

I've seen this in a lot of blogs and recipe books, but I don't know how far it extends, and I'm sure someone could extract just the base recipe from the narrative and the derivative work wouldn't violate copyright.

- [1] https://paleoflourish.com/recipe-copyright/#protected

Re: Food taste 'not protected by copyright' rules EU court

#45

Post by mdpopescu »

cpach wrote: post #36
beefhash wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright has become the catch-all kind of intellectual property if nothing more specific is available. It's grotesque what it's become, but that's just how it is.

I agree. Some people seem fond of trying to use copyright as a tool to prevent competition, but of course that’s not at all what it was intended for.

Er... preventing competition and aiding censorship are exactly what it was created for [1] [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

Re: Food taste 'not protected by copyright' rules EU court

#46

Post by simonh »

anticensor wrote: post #41
simonh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even assuming it can be specified precisely enough, they would have to ensure their own product always fell within the footprint, and if the rival product deviated even slightly from it - but not enough to taste significantly different - they would be fine. But of course to work to do all this would be fantastically expensive in practice, which is a whole other major problem,

I think you can describe a group or mixture of chemicals in a chemical footprint in its particular chemical properties, for example, "an alkane chain of 80-85 carbons with an alcohol bound on carbon no. 21 and an ethyl-keto bond on second to the last carbon". Does not have to single out a chemical.

How many such chemicals and variations on them are found in, say, as single one of the herbs in the cheese in question? But then it's not just about the raw chemicals in say the herb plant cells, it's also about their structure and relationship with each other.

If you just took a list of all the chemical compounds in say the cells of a herb plant leaf and synthesized them in a chemical slurry I doubt it would taste much like the herb. Which chemicals in the leaf fragments actually evaporate causing the smell? Which ones diffuse into the cheese, and how does the structure mediate that?

Re: Food taste 'not protected by copyright' rules EU court

#47

Post by chottocharaii »

ElBarto wrote: post #42
lixtra wrote: post #37

This is surprising since food is one of the oldest subjects of “IP” in Europe: > [Sybaris around 700 BC] pioneered the concept of intellectual property to ensure that cooks could exclusively profit from their signature dishes for a whole year. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybaris

Cooking recipes aren't protected as far as I remember so it would have been surprising to protect the end result.

They are under Australian copyright law

Re: Food taste 'not protected by copyright' rules EU court

#48

Post by lozenge »

realusername wrote: post #38
mygo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well different people have different retinas, how are you going to make sure there is a universally agreed representation, of a colored trademark =p https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=evQsOFQju08

I agree with that personally, having a trademark for a particular colour is clearly a dubious concept.

The trademark can only apply to related products. For example you can't sell phones with a logo using t mobile's colour, but you can sell shampoo.

Re: Food taste 'not protected by copyright' rules EU court

#50

Post by mjlee »

lozenge wrote: post #48
realusername wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with that personally, having a trademark for a particular colour is clearly a dubious concept.

The trademark can only apply to related products. For example you can't sell phones with a logo using t mobile's colour, but you can sell shampoo.

But you can't sell Apple Device Management software:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-44107621

Post reply on HN