Unless you have retained a lawyer...
McDonalds has applied for patent WO2006068865, which carries the title 'METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING A SANDWICH.' John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich, can eat his heart out ... given that it only mentions generic sandwich making 'tool(s),' rather than any specific machine, it might not survive after the In Re Bilski decision, which was meant to put a stop to absurdities such as this. But until McDonalds's application is rejected or invalidated, make sure you don't use their flowchart when making sandwiches ...
/.
Comments
Well, you know, their process does have the big advantage of reminding people to remove the tools. WTF?
Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 26, 2008 1:07 PM
whoa.... working on this ... working on this ....
Posted by: Greg Laden | November 26, 2008 1:26 PM
Greg: you might want to resize that image a bit. It's a bit too large to read.
Happy Turkey Day!
Posted by: Sandra Porter | November 26, 2008 1:27 PM
There, fixed. I don't know how that happened, but it was pretty scary!
Sandra, are you coming to down? Can I buy you a beer or something?
Posted by: Greg Laden | November 26, 2008 1:29 PM
We also learn what the top and bottom of a hamburger role is officially called (crown and heel).
Posted by: Greg Laden | November 26, 2008 1:31 PM
It is also fascinating that we are asked the existential question: "Are cold garnishes necessary."
Posted by: ris | November 26, 2008 1:34 PM
LOL, I'm safe. This is much different from my procedure:
get bread --> put stuff on --> eat
Posted by: watercat | November 26, 2008 1:39 PM
Apearently, it is possible to "close" a sandwich
Posted by: Alcari | November 26, 2008 2:13 PM
I hope Spongebob or Mr. Krabs sues if they accept the patent.
Posted by: MarkusR | November 26, 2008 3:43 PM
To be fair, figures and background often describe the situation in which the patent is used, and not the patent itself. For example, computer architecture patents usually include general diagrams of PCs. Additionally, this is all very vague and general fluff so as to not unintentionally place restrictions on how the claims may be interpreted. It's the claims that matter:
You might argue (and I'd be inclined to agree) that simultaneously toasting a bun and heating pre-assembled filling with different machines isn't so novel, but at least they aren't attempting to patent simply "making a sandwich."
Posted by: aporeticus | November 26, 2008 6:09 PM
Since when can one successfully patent something obvious?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 26, 2008 8:47 PM
what do you do after "END"?
Posted by: clevedan | November 27, 2008 2:43 AM