• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Replicators And Branded Food?

I'm referring to the fact that, thanks to stupid health standards, the recipe for the cookies has recently CHANGED!!!

The reason Nabisco has done so is because trans fat is bad for you, and there's a general drive to get them out of food. As well, there are are commercials about how pop causes you to have a bad liver just like booze does, and one by The Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario (where I live) equating the the Slinky-like device in a vending machine with the kind of device that takes out the fat from your arteries, as seen in this PSA now on local TV in Ontario:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGDYcXyqm1M[/yt]

By the future, I think replicators will have made those above-mentioned risks a thing of the past, but also time will have got rid of things like chips and Oreo cookies.
 
Would a given recipe be available for pattern replication, or would it be considered the intellectual property of its originator and thus only be given to those individuals the originator of the recipe authorizes?

Hmm... What possible reason could the originator have for limiting the distribution of his recipe? Why should the law defend his IP rights? Why would this be the "right" thing to do?

Timo Saloniemi
 
Would a given recipe be available for pattern replication, or would it be considered the intellectual property of its originator and thus only be given to those individuals the originator of the recipe authorizes?

Hmm... What possible reason could the originator have for limiting the distribution of his recipe? Why should the law defend his IP rights? Why would this be the "right" thing to do?

Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
 
Would a given recipe be available for pattern replication, or would it be considered the intellectual property of its originator and thus only be given to those individuals the originator of the recipe authorizes?
Hmm... What possible reason could the originator have for limiting the distribution of his recipe? Why should the law defend his IP rights? Why would this be the "right" thing to do?

Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs. Now they create for the joy of creation. Having one's name attached to the recipe, as creator, would be compensation enough.
 
Hmm... What possible reason could the originator have for limiting the distribution of his recipe? Why should the law defend his IP rights? Why would this be the "right" thing to do?

Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs.

I didn't even say he'd have monetary needs.

What I said was, why should he invest his time and energy in creating something if he doesn't get to control it afterwards?

Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?
 
I'm referring to the fact that, thanks to stupid health standards, the recipe for the cookies has recently CHANGED!!!

The reason Nabisco has done so is because trans fat is bad for you, and there's a general drive to get them out of food. As well, there are are commercials about how pop causes you to have a bad liver just like booze does, and one by The Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario (where I live) equating the the Slinky-like device in a vending machine with the kind of device that takes out the fat from your arteries, as seen in this PSA now on local TV in Ontario:



By the future, I think replicators will have made those above-mentioned risks a thing of the past, but also time will have got rid of things like chips and Oreo cookies.

Oh no....not chips and oreo cookies.....
 
Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs.

I didn't even say he'd have monetary needs.

What I said was, why should he invest his time and energy in creating something if he doesn't get to control it afterwards?

Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?
Perhaps if you had read and quoted my response in its entirety, you would have the answer to your question.:rolleyes:

My ENTIRE posted response:
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs. Now they create for the joy of creation. Having one's name attached to the recipe, as creator, would be compensation enough.
 
Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?

Well, you just did.

And what good is a recipe if it doesn't see use? It's difficult to see a miserly obsession to limit a thing's distribution as a positive thing, in general terms. Sure, the person inventing the recipe might wish to increase his social standing by making better food than others, through denying others the possibility of making that same food. But why would that be considered good? Why should the law support the "mine, mine, all mine!" spirit in principle?

Miserly desire for hogging is already built into us - we don't need laws to enforce that. Laws are supposed to hold societies together, and that generally means taking away the supposed "rights" and other privileges of the individual, so that common good is served. Why should laws in this case be differently based and aimed?

Timo Saloniemi
 
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs. Now they create for the joy of creation. Having one's name attached to the recipe, as creator, would be compensation enough.
Right. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -- Adam Smith

A handful of individuals may create solely for the joy of creation. For the vast majority of the human race, the primary motivation for creating, inventing, discovering, or building anything is profit and self-interest. It has ever been thus, and thus it shall ever be.

Trek TNG's vision of a socialist utopia appeals to me not in the least. Frankly, I'd rather be a Ferengi.
 
I'm referring to the fact that, thanks to stupid health standards, the recipe for the cookies has recently CHANGED!!!

The reason Nabisco has done so is because trans fat is bad for you, and there's a general drive to get them out of food.
A "general drive"? Not in the United States, except among the nanny regulators and the food police.

Lots of things are bad for you. Maybe we should ban tobacco, sugary desserts, fatty cuts of meat, and alcohol. (Oh, wait, we tried that one already. Can anyone say "Prohibition," "speakeasy," "bathtub gin," "bootlegging" and "Al Capone"?)
 
I guess it depends on the IP law and the DRM regime of the future. Digital technology--in particular large storage devices and high-bandwidth internet connections--have made copying digital media much, much easier than it was 20 years ago. This has prompted some people to take another look at intellectual property law and methods of distribution. We now have to deal with encrypted media, authorization servers, subscription services, et cetera that did not exist before.

Ubiquitous scanning and replicating technology would have the same effect on physical property. If I can scan a McChicken and have a McChicken any time I want, I have no reason to ever go to McDonald's again. If I can share my McChicken pattern over the internet, no one anywhere in the universe will ever need to go to McDonald's again.

McDonald's can react to this in one of two ways. They can use their corporate clout to force replicator manufacturers to install lockouts that prevent the replication of certain items (anything from the McMenu, anything containing 11 herbs and spices, etc.), or they can go out of business overnight. Unless Mickey D's clout extends to every replicator manufacturer in the galaxy, the former option is very improbable.


Or McDonald's could trademark the molecular patterns of their menu items.
 
Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs.

I didn't even say he'd have monetary needs.

What I said was, why should he invest his time and energy in creating something if he doesn't get to control it afterwards?

Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?

(Whistles) Sci...I'm pleasently suprised at you, for defending private property so well. :)
 
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs.

I didn't even say he'd have monetary needs.

What I said was, why should he invest his time and energy in creating something if he doesn't get to control it afterwards?

Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?

What controls would he want? From the sound of it seems like recognition for having created the 'pattern' or exemplar that the pattern is made from?
 
If everything goes the way of Trek then there will be pizzas, just watch Voyager. I think it will all depend on what the fopod resources are in the 24th century and where they come from, by then space travel to other planets could be a reality! Just imagine. an andorian rock lizard burger with fries and some kind of insect dressing:drool:!!!!!!!!!!
 
Simple: Why should he invest his time and energy into creating a new recipe if he doesn't get control over the recipe's distribution? Why should he create something if he doesn't get to retain ownership?
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs. Now they create for the joy of creation. Having one's name attached to the recipe, as creator, would be compensation enough.

This evolution allows the exchange of 'joy of creation' for, as an example, prime real estate? (To cite something that will not stop being scarce.)
 
I'm referring to the fact that, thanks to stupid health standards, the recipe for the cookies has recently CHANGED!!!

The reason Nabisco has done so is because trans fat is bad for you, and there's a general drive to get them out of food. As well, there are are commercials about how pop causes you to have a bad liver just like booze does, and one by The Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario (where I live) equating the the Slinky-like device in a vending machine with the kind of device that takes out the fat from your arteries, as seen in this PSA now on local TV in Ontario. By the future, I think replicators will have made those above-mentioned risks a thing of the past, but also time will have got rid of things like chips and Oreo cookies.
Given the medical science of the 24th century, you can most likely eat and drink just about anything that you can hold down. Bad cholesterol, transfats, breaded, deep fry, sodium rich, empty calories, a dash of MSG, hydrogenated oil, white flour and nitrates.

So Rush go ahead and have a big bowl of original recipe oreos (double stuff) and wash them down
with some vintage absinthe.
 
If everything goes the way of Trek then there will be pizzas, just watch Voyager.

I was shocked when I learned it took Trek nearly thirty years to mention pizza. Pizza in the future, that is. There was a previous referance to pizza in Trek IV, but that was in the 20th century.

Meanwhile, do people still drink pop (or soda for you Americans)? DS9 had several referances to root beer, but is that it? No cola, as in Coke or Pepsi?
 
In the enlightened 24th century, man has evolved past the need for monetary needs.

I didn't even say he'd have monetary needs.

What I said was, why should he invest his time and energy in creating something if he doesn't get to control it afterwards?

Why should I create something if it's not going to be mine?

(Whistles) Sci...I'm pleasently suprised at you, for defending private property so well. :)

Lest someone get confused, I'm not a fan of laissez-faire capitalism, either. I'm deeply skeptical of both Capitalism and Socialism; in my view, both, if left to their most extreme and "pure" forms, tend to inhibit the rights of many people, just in different ways using different justifications.

Just as I'm skeptical of the idea that someone who has invested time and energy into the creation of something new should not retain ownership and the right to control the distribution of that new thing, for instance, I'm also deeply skeptical of the idea that he ought to be able to keep all of the resources he gains in compensation for that new thing -- I firmly believe that there is a such thing as making too much money and as having an obligation to redistribute some of your wealth to the rest of society if you profit off of society.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top