Replicators And Branded Food?
- Thread starter Dingle Fritz
- Start date
By this logic, copying a song from CD to computer and distributing it over the internet would not be a copy write infringement because while it sounds like the real song is it made up of different material.
Which may be considered a valid argument tomorrow. Or then not. The validity of arguments for or against copyright doesn't hinge on the internal logic of such arguments, but merely on whether one wants to have copyright or not; arguments are simply adopted to fit such desire.
The "my burger #2" thing is what I think will replace brands and kill any enterprises based on brands: if the replicator exists, the first thing most people will want to do with it is play with the settings and customize everything. Why would anybody want to have the same thing as the Robinsons next door? Unless it's a specific "community" fad, like something shared over Facebook for a while and then forgotten.
Timo Saloniemi
The "my burger #2" thing is what I think will replace brands and kill any enterprises based on brands: if the replicator exists, the first thing most people will want to do with it is play with the settings and customize everything. Why would anybody want to have the same thing as the Robinsons next door? Unless it's a specific "community" fad, like something shared over Facebook for a while and then forgotten.
Timo Saloniemi
It's also factually incorrect.
Replicators don't duplicate the "tastes and sensations" and then inject them into protein paste. They are the "actual substance". And FWIW, whatever food you are eating now is "matter". And so are you, the ground you walk on and the air you breath.
While it isn't a 100% perfect copy on the atomic level, to say that, say, a replicated burger isn't a burger but only tastes like one is not technically how they've been explained to work. It's like saying that genetically modified corn isn't actual corn but only tastes like it. Both the replicated burger and the mutant corn are both about 99.99% identical to the source material on the molecular level. The variation on that level between a replicated bowl of ice cream and a non-replicated one is about the same as the molecular variation between multiple non-replicated bowls of ice cream (I hope that made sense
).It isn't nutritional supplement C infused with "Big Mac" flavor. It's replicated, as in a duplicate, a copy. The whole thing, not just the flavor. It's not called a Matter Imitator, it's called a Matter Replicator.
What?
Leaving aside the grave problems with a matter/energy/matter conversion, which has been covered elsewhere, replicated food is pretty close to the actual food. If it were not, it would not taste or feel like the actual food, especially given that the sense of taste is a chemical sensor, and that the proteins, fats, etc. within replicated good appear to be sufficient to sustain our heroes' metabolism.
At any rate, to the best of my knowledge, Burger King can't patent the concept of "hamburger." The brand is trademarkable, but has nothing to do with the substance.
My understanding of replicators is that they work on the same technology as transporters... they take energy/matter and arrange the atoms according to a stored pattern. Now, the things my vegetarian sister eats that look like hamburgers and "taste" like hamburgers are not hamburgers -- they are soy patties with cosmetic adjustments. That's like what the original "food synthesizers" made. A replicator hamburger IS a hamburger, because that is what the atomic/molecular/whatever pattern of that matter is. You just didn't have to kill a cow to get it.
Since WWIII hasn't happened (yet?) and without a ST:JAG show, it's hard to speculate on the status of intergalactic copyright and patent law... but didn't they kill all the lawyers?
I would assume, however, that the energy load required for a replicator is more than the average household cares to expend, and therefore grocery stores, restaurants, and traditional farms (as well as food factories similar to what makes Cheetos today) all still exist. It might be a McBolian's on every corner, though, not a McDonald's. And companies may make deals with Starfleet to get their recipes into the ship or station replicator libraries.
Since WWIII hasn't happened (yet?) and without a ST:JAG show, it's hard to speculate on the status of intergalactic copyright and patent law... but didn't they kill all the lawyers?
I would assume, however, that the energy load required for a replicator is more than the average household cares to expend, and therefore grocery stores, restaurants, and traditional farms (as well as food factories similar to what makes Cheetos today) all still exist. It might be a McBolian's on every corner, though, not a McDonald's. And companies may make deals with Starfleet to get their recipes into the ship or station replicator libraries.
All the lawyers would be dead by the 23d century anyhow. Although there are Starfleet lawyers and private lawyers, like Cogley. Although Cogley struck me as somewhat insane.The energy requirements for replicators (and holodecks, transporters, etc.) have to be great, though, that's true. I think it's implied that the average Earth household has them, but the energy budget of the Earth population is probably several million times the current one, driven by imports of antimatter from... wherever they manufacture the stuff.
It's also factually incorrect.
Replicators don't duplicate the "tastes and sensations" and then inject them into protein paste. They are the "actual substance". And FWIW, whatever food you are eating now is "matter". And so are you, the ground you walk on and the air you breath.
While it isn't a 100% perfect copy on the atomic level, to say that, say, a replicated burger isn't a burger but only tastes like one is not technically how they've been explained to work. It's like saying that genetically modified corn isn't actual corn but only tastes like it. Both the replicated burger and the mutant corn are both about 99.99% identical to the source material on the molecular level. The variation on that level between a replicated bowl of ice cream and a non-replicated one is about the same as the molecular variation between multiple non-replicated bowls of ice cream (I hope that made sense
It isn't nutritional supplement C infused with "Big Mac" flavor. It's replicated, as in a duplicate, a copy. The whole thing, not just the flavor. It's not called a Matter Imitator, it's called a Matter Replicator.
I am sorry, I thought that is what the other poster was trying to get at. You are correct. I need to learn to read posts better.
Re-writing as I rambled a bit writing it earlier.
What is was trying to say earlier and not wanting to go on to much as it could get hard on the head. Replication may indeed reproduce the item exactly but it's being produced via data pattern and from some other completely different item. All you need is the molecular structure of the item (could be extensive) and you could reproduce that item. A vege burger isn't a real burger at all. If you ever see the documentary 'King Corn' you will note that a real burger isn't a real burger. BTW if you ever feel the need to go on a burger free diet but kind find the motivation check out that documentary.
What my thinking was was that if it starts out as anything but the actual raw materials to make a burger. Let's say animal and plant protein as we are talking almost all of that. Then it's not technically a burger but a really good copy of one (at the molecular level). As you aren't making a burger but copying it's pattern you aren't infringing on the patent. As you didn't use any of the materials or recipe to create the burger. The ingredients aren't there (it's a molecule) and it could come from any number of sources. As you aren't getting a burger but a really excellent copy that looks and tastes and feels like a burger it's not the real thing.
Let's say you baked a chocolate cake at home and you then went to the store and bought a chocolate cake. Would those two cakes be the same? They would look and taste the same perhaps but they aren't the same as you will use different ingredients in yours. In this case a replicator is able to use molecules at it's discretion so the molecules themselves aren't ingredients. That's the comparison I was trying to make.
What is was trying to say earlier and not wanting to go on to much as it could get hard on the head. Replication may indeed reproduce the item exactly but it's being produced via data pattern and from some other completely different item. All you need is the molecular structure of the item (could be extensive) and you could reproduce that item. A vege burger isn't a real burger at all. If you ever see the documentary 'King Corn' you will note that a real burger isn't a real burger. BTW if you ever feel the need to go on a burger free diet but kind find the motivation check out that documentary.
What my thinking was was that if it starts out as anything but the actual raw materials to make a burger. Let's say animal and plant protein as we are talking almost all of that. Then it's not technically a burger but a really good copy of one (at the molecular level). As you aren't making a burger but copying it's pattern you aren't infringing on the patent. As you didn't use any of the materials or recipe to create the burger. The ingredients aren't there (it's a molecule) and it could come from any number of sources. As you aren't getting a burger but a really excellent copy that looks and tastes and feels like a burger it's not the real thing.
Let's say you baked a chocolate cake at home and you then went to the store and bought a chocolate cake. Would those two cakes be the same? They would look and taste the same perhaps but they aren't the same as you will use different ingredients in yours. In this case a replicator is able to use molecules at it's discretion so the molecules themselves aren't ingredients. That's the comparison I was trying to make.
Last edited:
Having it in Europe, where you can get a beer with it!
kind of makes one wonder how the quarter pounder conversation in 'pulp fiction' would be done in a trek context
I don't think humanity will ever give up Lays chips.
The Replimat in DS9 probably has branded food products on their database.
We know Budweiser exists at least until the 2250s.
Tom Paris had to be very specific with his tomato soup order in Caretaker (There are 47 varieties of tomato soup in our library).
There are brands in the 24th century. What about Sluggo Cola , the slimiest cola in the galaxy!
And Eelwasser.
We know Budweiser exists at least until the 2250s.
Tom Paris had to be very specific with his tomato soup order in Caretaker (There are 47 varieties of tomato soup in our library).
There are brands in the 24th century. What about Sluggo Cola , the slimiest cola in the galaxy!
And Eelwasser.1) I think it has already been explained why this wouldn't affect IP rights BUT
2) Look, taste, feel... all those are important to replicate here. But with all that advanced technology, maybe they have burgers that taste like Whoppers, but don't have the calories, and do have all sorts of important nutrients.
So you can have cold pizza for breakfast, and it'll be the same health-wise as eating whole-grain cereal with fruit.
Hmmmm... What exactly is the definition of 'branded food'? If you mean fast food places like McDonalds (which we call Maccas here), KFC, Pizza Hut, Subway, etc - then we have plenty of those here in Australia (in fact, I'm pretty sure Maccas has spread throughout most of the world, unfortunately).
And if you mean supermarket foods with brands... of course we have branded food. We have Oreos, and Coke, and another American brands - we also have UK brands like Cadbury (I was shocked when I visited the US and found out you don't have Cadbury!), as well as our own Aussie brands like Arnotts (who made biscuits, like Tim Tams), heck, even something as 'famous' as Vegemite is owned by Kraft.
I would assume that replicators are programed with predefined settings for food - for example, perhaps what you've described is what you'd get if you ordered a 'hamburger' - but then I'd also assume that people could reprogram the replicator as they pleased. And whatever you programmed in could be saved to your personal database, and ordered under a simpler name.
For example, if I was to program in a Chicken Burger, it'd be:
Chicken substitute, med well done, hot
Bacon substitute, crispy, hot
Pineapple, ring, single slice; Tomato, three slices; Lettuce leaves; cold
Bun, sesame seeds, toasted; tomato sauce; warm
But then your Chicken Burger might be completely different from mine - but because both are saved to our personal databases, and programmed to our specifications, we'd get what we pre-programmed anytime we ordered it from the replicator.
And maybe simple items like 'Earth Apple' would be some sort of generic, standard apple - but if you wanted to specify, you could.
But that brings us into all kinds of philosophical debates.
Like, what is 'authentic' - if it looks, tastes, smells, feels, and even sounds like the original item, why is it not authentic?
We mass produce everything these days anyway! Doesn't Maccas and KFC and all that just ship out all their pre-made cra... food, so its all supposed to be the same anyway?
I've never entirely understood the aversion to replicated food. If its not to your specific tastes, then I can think of a simple solution - either reprogram it OR you make the food from scratch, using natural ingredients, and then just scan it in - voila! Delicious replicated food that tastes like the original.
Then again, I've always liked the idea of synthetic food. Just think, it tastes like a Krispy Kreme donut, but it really has all the nutrients and vitamins and good stuff of say spinach, or some other wonderful healthy food.
You can eat whatever you like, taste-wise, but its programmed to have the perfect combination of vitamins, minerals, protein, carbs, etc etc to maintain your health!
It's also factually incorrect.
Replicators don't duplicate the "tastes and sensations" and then inject them into protein paste. They are the "actual substance". And FWIW, whatever food you are eating now is "matter". And so are you, the ground you walk on and the air you breath.
While it isn't a 100% perfect copy on the atomic level, to say that, say, a replicated burger isn't a burger but only tastes like one is not technically how they've been explained to work. It's like saying that genetically modified corn isn't actual corn but only tastes like it. Both the replicated burger and the mutant corn are both about 99.99% identical to the source material on the molecular level. The variation on that level between a replicated bowl of ice cream and a non-replicated one is about the same as the molecular variation between multiple non-replicated bowls of ice cream (I hope that made sense
It isn't nutritional supplement C infused with "Big Mac" flavor. It's replicated, as in a duplicate, a copy. The whole thing, not just the flavor. It's not called a Matter Imitator, it's called a Matter Replicator.
Hmmm, this is what I get for posting before finishing a thread entirely.
I don't see why a replicator couldn't do both... In fact, (as I said above) I think a Matter Imitator is a brilliant idea.
The Replimat in DS9 probably has branded food products on their database.
We know Budweiser exists at least until the 2250s.
Tom Paris had to be very specific with his tomato soup order in Caretaker (There are 47 varieties of tomato soup in our library).
There are brands in the 24th century. What about Sluggo Cola , the slimiest cola in the galaxy!
But we all know that the Ferengi have a Capitalist society - of course they still have brands. As to whether the Federation do or not... -shrugs- Its hard to say really. We never really got an explanation of the inner workings of the Federation, especially its economy or apparent lack thereof.
I'd like to think we've gotten past the need for brands - as others have said, we can just replicate whatever we want! The Federation's database of food must be MASSIVE. There are probably millions of varieties of every kind of foodstuff imaginable - based on brands, old recipes, new recipes, family traditions...
I'd also like to think that fast food is completely irrelevant by the 23rd and 24th century (if not sooner) - again, with replicators, you can get your food instantly. Hopefully all we have left are quality restaurants, who use all organic ingredients and such - like Sisko's.
I admit I had ignored this thread until a short time ago.
I think that by the time of food replicators, where food is easily copied, the trend for going out to eat will be to very original cooking using all natural ingredients. While the ABILITY to replicate food will be there, I am sure it will never taste EXACTLY like the original thing.
Yes, you can replicate a pizza which tastes pretty close to the real thing, but the smells, the ambiance, the sounds of people cooking and enjoying real food will be something people will also value.
I think that by the time of food replicators, where food is easily copied, the trend for going out to eat will be to very original cooking using all natural ingredients. While the ABILITY to replicate food will be there, I am sure it will never taste EXACTLY like the original thing.
Yes, you can replicate a pizza which tastes pretty close to the real thing, but the smells, the ambiance, the sounds of people cooking and enjoying real food will be something people will also value.
