Can You Patent Pretending To Let Customers Know Their Online Ordered Pizza Is In The Oven?

from the patenting-bullshit dept

Jeff Nolan points us to an amusing article trying to dig into some questions over whether or not Domino's "patent pending" pizza tracker is real. Launched a little over two years ago, apparently, if you order a pizza from Domino's online, it takes you to a website where it alerts you in real-time to the status of your pizza: is it in the oven, has it been put in a box, is it on its way, etc. Domino's was quite proud of the fact it had filed a patent for the technology, but there have been some concerns about whether the technology is real, or if it's just a pretty flash animation connected to nothing in reality.

The "evidence" against it being real is that one anonymous commenter on a blog post about the tracker said that it told him his pizza was in the oven and then boxed before he discovered a series of voicemails from the store claiming they could not fulfill his online order because they were "out of deep dish." The second example comes from a guy who just ordered some bottles of soda (no pizza) and was somewhat amused/horrified to watch as his order was "placed in the oven" and then boxed -- only to be delivered two hours later (a bit late) after someone called him asking him if he had ordered something from Domino's, and if so, what it was. That guy notes, of the patent application:

Is that really patent pending technology? I didn't know you could patent bull*&%t

Well, there have been patents on anti-gravity devices, even though they're not supposed to grant patents that, you know, violate the laws of physics -- so perhaps that answers the question there. There's also the patent on sending signals faster than the speed of light.

As for Domino's?

Tim McIntyre, the vice president of communications at Domino's, insisted that his company had not patented bullshit.

"The Pizza Tracker is real, and it is accurate to within 30 seconds," McIntyre told The Daily Caller just seconds after we indicated to customer service that we were investigating the veracity of the Pizza Tracker's sometimes extraordinary claims. Every update customers see on the Tracker except for the final 'delivered' update, McIntyre said knowingly, is triggered by a button press in the store itself.

He later explains that the only part that is "faked" is the delivery time. They just assume the pizza was delivered 10 minutes after it leaves the store (which I would imagine might lead to angry customers who live further away, or if there's a bad traffic jam or something). As for the complaints, apparently there's a bit of a "glitch" with this amazing patent pending technology, such that if someone at the store "clears" an order, the system interprets that as "baked and ready," since, despite all the brilliance going into this patent-pending technology, no one thought to add a feature that tells the customer something's wrong with the order.

But, of course, you shouldn't build that yourself. You might infringe on Domino's possible patent.

As for the patent application itself, I've been looking around for it and haven't turned up anything. Anyone know which patent application it is?

Filed Under: patents, pizza
Companies: domino's

Copyright, Investigative Reporting Online... And Domino's Pizza Grossout

from the putting-it-all-together dept

People have been submitting various versions of the infamous Domino's Pizza employee grossout video of two employees doing... er... bad things to food, that's been the talk of the social media world all week, but there really didn't seem to be that much of real interest to talk about here -- or at least nothing that hadn't really been discussed to death elsewhere. As plenty of folks have pointed out, the whole event and Domino's reaction (who knows how successful it will eventually be) will certainly become a regular case study concerning "social media" and how companies can and should respond to certain events. On the whole, I think Domino's has made the best of a really awful situation which has no really good response.

That said, there were two interesting side stories involved in all of this that haven't received much additional attention, but both seem to fit into themes we discuss here on a regular basis. The first is that, in the NY Times' coverage of the story, it notes that the woman involved, Kristy Hammonds, eventually used a copyright claim to get the video taken down from YouTube -- though, of course, they're now available in many more places. It seems like an odd sort of thing to try to pull down via a copyright claim. After all, she had put the video up on YouTube in the first place, even if she later came to regret it. And, by this point, the video is clearly part of a larger news story, so it's not clear if there's really a legitimate DMCA takedown to be issued over the video... Of course, in the end, it's really a meaningless gesture. The video is spread so far and wide that no takedown is going to make it disappear.

The second issue of relevance is the fact that it was folks online at the always excellent Consumerist website who were able to take the original video and track down the actual location of the Domino's franchise in question, and to alert Domino's corporate execs. While we keep hearing old school journalists whine about how no investigative reporting gets done without newspapers, this situation shows exactly how a group of motivated, interested folks, can do plenty of sleuthing and exposing of malfeasance themselves. That's not to say, of course, that this is "the model" for investigative journalism -- but to show that the whole space is changing these days, and it no longer requires a classically trained journalist in every situation. If an investigation needs to happen, there are ways to make it happen.

Filed Under: copyright, investigative reporting, social media, videos
Companies: domino's