General Mills Granted A Design Patent On A Tortilla Bowl Because Why Even Pretend Anymore?
from the patent-thicket dept
While we've talked in the past about how absurd design patents can get, it's worth pointing out that, hey, shit's not getting any less absurd, people. Design patents, as opposed to utility patents, function more like trademarks. The idea is that the "invention" in the case of design patents are supposed to be unique outputs of what might otherwise not be unique inventions that are then said to act as some sort of single-source invented thing. Honestly, the whole concept smells of a workaround on the actual purpose of patent law and it tends to function that way as well. How else do you explain the design patent granted on a toothpick with some lines carved into it, for instance? Or Apple's design patent on the animation of turning a page within an ebook? Rewarding exclusivity to these types of "inventions" that barely work up the sweat of an "inventor" should seem absurd to you, as should the frequency with which the public is left wondering where exactly the "invention" is in any of this.
Which brings us to General Mills and its recently granted design patent on tortilla bowls.
General Mills Inc. has received a patent for a bowl-shaped tortilla. It's just a single patent and probably not a big item for General Mills (NYSE: GIS), but the concept of a tortilla bowl seems so simple that it's interesting the Golden Valley-based food giant sought and received the patent.
No, not interesting, annoying. Annoying and frustratingly believable, as the USPTO appears to mostly be in the business of seeing just how far it can stretch the concept of invention by granting these sorts of design patents. And there doesn't appear to be much unique about this tortilla bowl. Here are some of the images from the patent:
Tortilla bowls have been around for roughly ever, as best as I can tell, appearing in stores and restaurants all over the place. I even vaguely remember a walking-talking basketball getting some attention a while back for tweeting out an image of him enjoying a tortilla bowl on Cinco de Mayo.
And, yet, the USPTO saw fit to grant General Mills this design patent for the glorious invention of a thing that's been around forever. That the company named its "invention" an "ornamental design for a shaped tortilla" only drives home the absurdity that has become the realm of design patents, where invention can mean anything and the USPTO applies zero critical thinking to the application process.
Asked to comment on this patent, a company spokesman offered up this content-less reply.
"We file patents all the time," General Mills spokesman Mike Siemienas said.
And why not, given that the approval process for those patents appears to be some kind of assembly line culminating with a mechanical tipping bird that has an "APPROVED!" stamp super-glued to its beak? Still, I somehow doubt that the founders had any intention of rewarding patents for such non-inventions as a tortilla bowl.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: design patents, patents, tortilla bowl
Companies: general mills
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Coming up next:
Worth a try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coming up next:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coming up next:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you no longer need to pretend to invent something,
just send pay and for a design patent on a basic design ,
invented by someone else years ago in common use.
maybe i can get a design patent on 2button mouse
with a slider button in the centre .
Apple did not invent phones with rounded corners and retangular screens .
did they not even do an image search for prior art .
Real inventors would not patent things already invented in common use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh dear...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
user fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: user fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: user fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Design Patent are supposed to be unique
Case in point, the original Coca-Cola bottle. The bottle shape is not necessary to hold in the liquid, but it is a unique and distinctive shape. That is why it originally had a design patent granted to it.
http://www.patentadesign.com/gallery/coca-cola-bottle-design-patent.html
The tortilla bowl in the patent application doesn't even come close to meeting that standard. The Patent Office needs to be reformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Design Patent are supposed to be unique
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thorough Reporting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many General Mills employees does it take to invent the tortilla bowl?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, at least it's a design patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In many ways, they're more like trademarks than patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jim Whittaker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]