In an interesting new piece for Slate, Adam Conner-Simons ’08, a frequent contributor to PCM, looks at attempts to patent edible innovations ranging from new cuts of beef to no-crust sandwiches.
The recent influx of culinary copyright and plagiarism cases—cookbook authors bickering about recipes, New York chefs suing each other over lobster rolls—reflects rising financial stakes in the industry. … The only way to figure out which inventions can be patented and which ones can’t is through trial and error. McDonald’s’ ‘toasting of a bread component?’ No, thanks. ‘Edible cardboard?’ Welcome to the club.”
Conner-Simons concludes:
… nothing about intellectual property is cut and dried—not even massive slabs of cow carcass. We can’t determine if a food innovation should be patented by looking at its surface: It’s about the context, not the concept. Provided an invention is creative and original enough, it deserves legal protection, whether it’s a hunk of beef or double-sided sheets of inkjet sushi.
