5 ms·

This case doesn't have anything to do with DRM as the title suggest. It's more clear in the article: "the java-bean equivalent of DRM". As far as I can tell it'

This case doesn't have anything to do with DRM as the title suggest. It's more clear in the article: "the java-bean equivalent of DRM". As far as I can tell it's actually just allegations of patent abuse and anti-competitive vertical integration. Keurig had a patent on the technology for both machine and pod. That patent expired in 2012, allowing third-party vendors to start making pods. Treehouse Foods argues (among other things) that Keurig is changing the design of their machine and the pods. The allegation is that the new design doesn't have any practical purpose other than to maintain the patent on pods for several years. If true, this is going to be an interesting case. Keurig can change the design of their machine whenever they want in theory, but can they do so for no other reason than to maintain their own market share? They'd be effectively forcing everyone to pay them to compete at all so long as people buy new machines. Drug companies often employ similar patent tricks in order to maintain their dominance of a market via extended patents, patents on new uses for the same chemical, and slightly-altered and somewhat improved chemicals. Consumer groups have complained about this for years, but nothing serious has changed yet.

digikata 13y ago
If the patent is expired, one wonders if some company may reverse engineer the Keurig 1.0 design, and continue their manufacture (along with all the factories that are already tooled for the 1.0 cups.)
- wtallis 13y ago
  If the patent is expired, then reverse engineering had better not be necessary, or else the original patent was insufficiently detailed to be valid.
  - shasta 13y ago
    The patent was required to be sufficiently detailed to allow producing compatible cups? I don't think so.
    - ghayes 13y ago
      Isn't that the point of a patent?
      - kefka 13y ago
        Well, yeah. However it has also been the game with patents to use as obtuse and as confusing and as little detail to get the patent while making sure people can't reproduce it. So yeah, we get the worst of both worlds: money extraction of exclusivity and lack of understanding that patents were supposed to solve.
      - shasta 13y ago
        I haven't read the patent, but I assume Keurig patents a way to improve cups in some obscure way that probably doesn't matter but for which they can claim novelty. Their patent must explain how to implement this "improvement". Now, in order to be compatible with a Keurig machine, you must implement this "improvement", which is really the point of the "improvement" in the first place and why I keep putting it in quotes. But compatibility with a Keurig machine is not what's patented and there can be plenty of other undisclosed details that prevent someone from making Keurig compatible coffee cups.
  - digikata 13y ago
    A patent details the key concepts, it's not like downloading a project from github and building it. With something mechanical, even more so. There won't be CAD files of the device uploaded with the patent, let alone tooling designs to produce the device. So there's plenty of reverse engineering to do even if the patent is expired.
adventured 13y ago
"Keurig can change the design of their machine whenever they want in theory, but can they do so for no other reason than to maintain their own market share?" That's a pretty simple issue to resolve. Yes, Keurig should be able to change their own product at will. Whether it's to maintain their market share or just for fun is irrelevant. If you get into the business of regulating coffee companies based on intentions related to subtle design changes and guessing whether it's directed at maintaining market share, what you'll have is a ridiculous government/business nightmare. An attempt to generate a new patent from the trivial product change should be denied. Problem solved.
jccalhoun 13y ago
It might end up just being a new shape but the CEO's wording implies that it will be closer to what is used in printer ink cartridges. Following the trail from the submitted article to the article it links to and to the article that one links to finally takes us to the transcript of the CEO's earnings call: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1853341-green-mountain-coffee-roasters-ceo-discusses-f4q-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript http://seekingalpha.com/article/1853341-green-mountain-coffe... "While we're still not willing to discuss specifics about the platform for competitive reasons, we are confident it delivers game-changing performance. To ensure the system delivers on the promise of excellent quality beverages produced simply and consistently every brew every time, we use interactive technology to help us perfectly brew all Keurig brew packs. Because of this the system will not brew unlicensed packs."
- Natsu 13y ago
  And this is why we got one of the little cups that let you put any coffee in there :)
- scrabble 13y ago
  To ensure the system delivers on the promise of excellent quality beverages produced simply and consistently every brew every time, we use interactive technology to help us perfectly brew all Keurig brew packs. This sounds remarkably similar to Tassimo's bar code system on the surface.
  - tesseract 13y ago
    Which in turn sounds remarkably similar to the barcodes and the pattern of aluminum pads (which were read out by spring contacts that sensed the electrical conductivity) on 35mm film cartridges.
- angersock 13y ago
  It's. A fucking. Coffeepot.
  - M2Ys4U 13y ago
vijayr 13y ago
Isn't this standard practice in other industries too? Change something so slightly, simply to hold on to copyright/patent?

digikata 13y ago

If the patent is expired, one wonders if some company may reverse engineer the Keurig 1.0 design, and continue their manufacture (along with all the factories that are already tooled for the 1.0 cups.)

wtallis 13y ago
If the patent is expired, then reverse engineering had better not be necessary, or else the original patent was insufficiently detailed to be valid.
- shasta 13y ago
  The patent was required to be sufficiently detailed to allow producing compatible cups? I don't think so.
  - ghayes 13y ago
    Isn't that the point of a patent?
    - kefka 13y ago
      Well, yeah. However it has also been the game with patents to use as obtuse and as confusing and as little detail to get the patent while making sure people can't reproduce it. So yeah, we get the worst of both worlds: money extraction of exclusivity and lack of understanding that patents were supposed to solve.
    - shasta 13y ago
      I haven't read the patent, but I assume Keurig patents a way to improve cups in some obscure way that probably doesn't matter but for which they can claim novelty. Their patent must explain how to implement this "improvement". Now, in order to be compatible with a Keurig machine, you must implement this "improvement", which is really the point of the "improvement" in the first place and why I keep putting it in quotes. But compatibility with a Keurig machine is not what's patented and there can be plenty of other undisclosed details that prevent someone from making Keurig compatible coffee cups.
- digikata 13y ago
  A patent details the key concepts, it's not like downloading a project from github and building it. With something mechanical, even more so. There won't be CAD files of the device uploaded with the patent, let alone tooling designs to produce the device. So there's plenty of reverse engineering to do even if the patent is expired.

adventured 13y ago

"Keurig can change the design of their machine whenever they want in theory, but can they do so for no other reason than to maintain their own market share?" That's a pretty simple issue to resolve. Yes, Keurig should be able to change their own product at will. Whether it's to maintain their market share or just for fun is irrelevant. If you get into the business of regulating coffee companies based on intentions related to subtle design changes and guessing whether it's directed at maintaining market share, what you'll have is a ridiculous government/business nightmare. An attempt to generate a new patent from the trivial product change should be denied. Problem solved.

jccalhoun 13y ago

It might end up just being a new shape but the CEO's wording implies that it will be closer to what is used in printer ink cartridges. Following the trail from the submitted article to the article it links to and to the article that one links to finally takes us to the transcript of the CEO's earnings call: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1853341-green-mountain-coffee-roasters-ceo-discusses-f4q-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript http://seekingalpha.com/article/1853341-green-mountain-coffe... "While we're still not willing to discuss specifics about the platform for competitive reasons, we are confident it delivers game-changing performance. To ensure the system delivers on the promise of excellent quality beverages produced simply and consistently every brew every time, we use interactive technology to help us perfectly brew all Keurig brew packs. Because of this the system will not brew unlicensed packs."

Natsu 13y ago
And this is why we got one of the little cups that let you put any coffee in there :)
scrabble 13y ago
To ensure the system delivers on the promise of excellent quality beverages produced simply and consistently every brew every time, we use interactive technology to help us perfectly brew all Keurig brew packs. This sounds remarkably similar to Tassimo's bar code system on the surface.
- tesseract 13y ago
  Which in turn sounds remarkably similar to the barcodes and the pattern of aluminum pads (which were read out by spring contacts that sensed the electrical conductivity) on 35mm film cartridges.
angersock 13y ago
It's. A fucking. Coffeepot.
- M2Ys4U 13y ago

vijayr 13y ago

Isn't this standard practice in other industries too? Change something so slightly, simply to hold on to copyright/patent?