Tuesday, April 12, 2005

[geek][politics] ...wherein a crust portion [...] has been removed

Who writes this stuff? Take a minute to read the actual text of U.S. Patent 6,004,596, aka The Uncrustable ®. I find their refutation of the prior art quite interesting:
While these sandwiches may be suitable for the particular purpose to which they address, they are not as suitable for providing a convenient sandwich without an outer crust which can be stored for long periods of time without a central filling from leaking outwardly. The prior art does not teach a sandwich without an outer crust which sealably retains an inner filling for extended periods of time. In these respects, the sealed crustless sandwich according to the present invention substantially departs from the conventional concepts and designs of the prior art, and in so doing provides a sandwich primarily developed for the purpose of providing a convenient sandwich without an outer crust which can be stored for long periods of time without a central filling from leaking outwardly.
Coz' everyone knows a Pop-Tart ® doesn't stay sealed for extended periods of time... Oh wait - my bad... That's pastry, not a sandwich... So no one's ever come up with a crustless sealed sandwich before. Jamaican or Cornish pasties? Samosas? Nope, all crust, no bread... Egg rolls? Spring rolls? Nope, that's all pasta-based. Hum bow? Um... Get back to me. I can wait. Must be the peanut butter that makes it special then, right? Oh, no... they explicitly mention meat, cheese, fruit, honey, and vegetable oil (oil!?) in their patent, too... Let's try a little experiment then, shall we? It's the geeky thing to do: let's Google "smuckers" and "uncrustable", shall we? Back? Good. Notice anything? Like the overwhelming number of school menus featuring these things? I wonder how much more an Uncrustable ® costs per serving than a plain-'ol PB&J... Categories: ; ; ;

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home