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:

Such a unique design. Or not.

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.

Filed Under: design patents, patents, tortilla bowl
Companies: general mills

General Mills Changes Policy After Internet Did Not 'Like' Its Plan To Remove Your Ability To Sue If You 'Liked' Its Facebook Page

from the just-trying-to-help dept

Following reports from last week about how cereal company General Mills had changed its privacy policy to preclude people from going to court if they so much as "liked" Cheerios on Twitter, the company has backtracked, changed its policy and admitted that consumers "didn't like" the new policy, though they insist it was all a misunderstanding:

As has been widely reported, General Mills recently posted a revised set of Legal Terms on our websites. Those terms – and our intentions – were widely misread, causing concern among consumers.

So we’ve listened – and we’re changing them back to what they were before.

We rarely have disputes with consumers – and arbitration would have simply streamlined how complaints are handled. Many companies do the same, and we felt it would be helpful.

But consumers didn’t like it.

After throwing in some legalese (and admitting their lawyers made them do that), General Mills' director of external communications Kirstie Foster explained:

We’ll just add that we never imagined this reaction. Similar terms are common in all sorts of consumer contracts, and arbitration clauses don’t cause anyone to waive a valid legal claim. They only specify a cost-effective means of resolving such matters. At no time was anyone ever precluded from suing us by purchasing one of our products at a store or liking one of our Facebook pages. That was either a mischaracterization – or just very misunderstood.

Not that any of that matters now.

On behalf of our company and our brands, we would also like to apologize. We’re sorry we even started down this path. And we do hope you’ll accept our apology. We also hope that you’ll continue to download product coupons, talk to us on social media, or look for recipes on our websites.

That first paragraph is not entirely accurate. While similar claims do exist in all sorts of consumer contracts (and, contrary to the statement, they often do cause people to effectively waive valid legal claims), they tend to exist in actual contracts. That is, not in a website privacy policy or terms of use -- which is what made General Mills' effort so notable.

Again, there is a simple solution to all of this. It should be clear that simply throwing up a "terms of use" page has no direct legal impact, especially if there's no evidence that anyone has actually read it.

Filed Under: arbitration, cheerios, contracts, legal terms
Companies: general mills

General Mills Says If You 'Like' Cheerios On Facebook, You Can No Longer Sue

from the likewrap dept

Three years ago when the Supreme Court ruled in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, basically allowing binding arbitration clauses in contracts to exclude class action suits, we noted that it was an unfortunate pitting of a broken class action system against a broken arbitration system. Both arbitration and class action lawsuits may have some good features -- and the concepts behind each sound good, but both have been abused to extreme levels. On the class action side, often these lawsuits have little to do with righting wrongs, and very much to do with big paydays for lawyers (and some companies even turn class action lawsuits into marketing opportunities).

On the arbitration side, while the theory of having a neutral third party settle the dispute without having to go through an expensive litigation process certainly sounds good, the reality is quite different. Since arbitrators are hired, and large companies are frequent employers, arbitrators have very strong incentives to side with those companies, in order to make sure they'll be hired in the future. When you have one party who is likely to be a frequent employer, and another who will only engage in the transaction once, guess where the bias is going to fall. And, indeed, multiple studies have shown that's exactly what happens. In one case 94% of rulings went against consumers. Another study showed that companies that regularly use arbitration get higher awards.

So neither side in that fight necessarily could be said to "represent the good guys." However, as we noted when the Supreme Court ruling came out, it seemed likely that this would lead to companies putting arbitration clauses absolutely everywhere. At the time, we suggested a simple fix: have Congress make it clear that you can't give up your right to go to court based on a non-negotiated contract. And that still seems to make sense, but of course, nothing has actually been done.

It should come as little surprise, then, that the prediction of seeing companies put arbitration clauses absolutely everywhere is happening -- and to ridiculous levels. The NY Times has an article about how General Mills, makers of Cheerios, Chex and lots of other cereals, has updated some legalese on their own website to basically say if you do absolutely anything related to its cereals -- including liking them on Facebook, or buying them -- you give up your right to go to court and are agreeing to arbitration:

General Mills, the maker of cereals like Cheerios and Chex as well as brands like Bisquick and Betty Crocker, has quietly added language to its website to alert consumers that they give up their right to sue the company if they download coupons, “join” it in online communities like Facebook, enter a company-sponsored sweepstakes or contest or interact with it in a variety of other ways.

Instead, anyone who has received anything that could be construed as a benefit and who then has a dispute with the company over its products will have to use informal negotiation via email or go through arbitration to seek relief, according to the new terms posted on its site.

In language added on Tuesday after The New York Times contacted it about the changes, General Mills seemed to go even further, suggesting that buying its products would bind consumers to those terms.

While one might argue that you get what you deserve when you "like" a cereal on Facebook, this still seems ridiculous and excessive. I can almost see the sense of saying if it's in a binding contract you sign as a subscriber (e.g., mobile phone service) such a clause can be considered legit, but something like this, which isn't even "clickwrap" but more "likewrap" can't possibly be legally binding. Not only has the person probably not read the details, from what's being said, this "binding arbitration" clause may appear on a website they've never visited at all. I can't see how that can or should be considered a true contract in any sense of the word.

Filed Under: arbitration, binding arbitration, binding terms, cheerios, class action, liking
Companies: general mills

Pillsbury Sends Cease & Desist To 'Dough Girl' Bakery

from the a-recipe-for-doughy-disaaster dept

Another day, another story of a questionable trademark nastygram from a big corporation against a small business. The latest involves baked goods giant Pillsbury (a part of food conglomerate General Mills), who apparently took offense to a small Salt Lake City bakery called "My Dough Girl" and sent a cease & desist. Honestly, it took me a while to make the connection here. Yes, Pillsbury has the "Pillsbury Dough Boy," but that always seems to include the Pillsbury name. The article claims that the owner of the bakery checked on any "copyright infringement," which might explain the problem... this is a trademark issue, not a copyright one (though, I'm guessing this is just confusion on the part of the bakery owner, the reporter, or both).

Of course, these sorts of stories show up all the time. There were a couple of interesting elements in this one. While no lawsuit was actually filed, the fear that a legal nastygram from a giant firm can engender in a small business becomes clear. The owner of the store was so afraid of a lawsuit, she wouldn't even talk to reporters. It's not clear why talking to a reporter would make the situation any worse, but it does show how fearful a single letter has made this woman. In fact, a different report claims that General Mills' lawyers told her not to talk to the press. That's pretty ridiculous. Whether or not it's smart to talk to the press, she shouldn't be taking orders from General Mills' counsel. Either way, it looks like the bakery immediately capitulated and agreed to change its name, at a cost of $50,000. Ouch.

Even more interesting, though, is the reason this story is getting attention isn't because the bakery is fighting it, but because a bunch of fans of the bakery have used the internet to spread the word about how they really don't appreciate Pillsbury bullying their local bakery, which no one confused with the food giant in the first place. The article above also says that General Mills asked the owner to "kill the Facebook page," even though she didn't create it and has no control over it. In fact, she seems afraid that the Facebook page is making things worse. Still, it's quite a testament to modern technology that this is even possible. Can you imagine patrons of a small business standing up to a giant corporation without the small business' support in the past?

However, all it's really doing is calling a lot more attention to incredible bullying by a company like General Mills against a small company that has a legitimate claim to the name. One of these days, perhaps lawyers will realize that legal bullying leads to backlash, but I guess we still haven't reach that point yet.

Filed Under: bakery, cease and desist
Companies: facebook, general mills, my dough girl, pillsbury