Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents It's funny.  Laugh. Technology

Nestle Patents Coffee Beer 471

Dotnaught writes "New Scientist reports that Nestec, a Nestle subsidiary, has applied for a patent on a fermented coffee beverage. In other words, coffee beer -- it foams like beer and packs the caffeine of coffee, with "fruity and/or floral notes due to the fermentation of the coffee aroma."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nestle Patents Coffee Beer

Comments Filter:
  • Buzz Beer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sohgin ( 823654 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @01:59AM (#13938847)
    I think Drew Carey has a lawsuit.
  • by Krach42 ( 227798 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @02:03AM (#13938874) Homepage Journal
    WTF kind of programmers are you around? When I tell people that I avoid caffiene, they look at me like I'm crazy.
  • by afra242 ( 465406 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @02:12AM (#13938916)
    Off topic, but it comes up every now and again.

    If it's in moderation, alcohol and/or caffeine is alright. Maybe you're thinking of extreme cases, like the unemployed guy down the street drinking 10 beers before lunch time. I have met many smart people who drink alcohol socially. Caffeine has been around for centuries and again, within moderation, it isn't going to kill you or make you stupid.

    Before you start harping on people drinking caffeine or alcohol, take a look at what people eat. The nutrition value of meals these days, in the US, has taken a large nosedive. Obesity is huge, and it is mostly because of what people eat and the lack of exercise.

    Moderated beer consumption doesn't make one a good or bad programmer....
  • by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @02:12AM (#13938918)
    Regular exercise is a far better option than resorting to caffeine highs. With such exercise you're able to maintain a better mental state, and do not tire as easily. It's better to give developers a gym pass than a coffee machine.

  • by dangitman ( 862676 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @02:12AM (#13938924)
    Indeed, many of the best programmers I ever worked with were strictly against the use of caffeine and alcohol.

    While many of the best humans I have ever met are strong advocates of caffeine and alcohol use.

  • by Slow Smurf ( 839532 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @02:18AM (#13938947)
    Is it wrong to assume there is some method of testing/supervision for new programmers and reviews for old to avoid that very situation happening?

    I don't give a rats ass if a person is stoned, hyper on caffine or buzzed if they accomplish what they attempt, always. If there isn't a method to see if a person is capable for this mission critical software, THAT is the problem.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03, 2005 @02:24AM (#13938959)
    I worked with real programmers. The kind who develop mission critical software where mistakes are not tolerated. Aeroplane flight control software systems, for instance. Such people cannot be impaired while coding, and thus avoid alcoholic and caffeinated beverages completely.

    And what do these Real Red Blooded Programmers do after work? Sit around waiting for the Bug Alarm, at which point they slide down the Fire Pole leading from their basement above the office to the office itself? No rational person says to drink on the Job when it's Important. Like when you have to make Real True Programs.

    But after a long day of Untrue Work nobody wants some arrogant Shitstain like you who can't handle his beer saying in a Fake British accent, "Oh, I honestly do say! Why do people ingest such vile fluids! My word! I certainly don't need alcohol to have a good time! Dear? Are you awake? Dear? Everybody Love's Raymond is about to commence! Dear? Oh, Dear!"

    In conclusion, you are a Bloody Cuntflap.
  • by Zouden ( 232738 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @02:39AM (#13939008)
    Actually this drink does not contain any alcohol at all. I don't think it is really beer.
    But anyway, for all those nay-saying this patent, I think it's a fairly decent one. It certainly isn't obvious!

    From TFA:
    Nestlé admits it was tricky to preserve the characteristic coffee smell in the production process. Coffee beans are roasted normally, and the chemicals containing the natural aroma collected in a cryogenic condenser, before being converted into coffee oil. The remains of the roast are then ground to powder, mixed with yeast and sucrose, and fermented for 4 hours at just below 22C. At this temperature the yeast can still metabolise but does not generate alcohol.

    The aroma oil is then mixed in with the liquid and nitrogen is injected to make it foam. Adding a touch of extra sugar also helps trap the aroma until the drink is poured, Nestlé claim.


    Now, ask yourself, is that obvious? I think this patent is perfectly acceptable.
  • Foamy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @02:54AM (#13939059) Homepage Journal
    What is the point of this product?

    My guess is that the selling point of the product is that it is a packaged foamy drink. It is easy to market foamy. Coffee shops do a good job selling foaminess. The other bottled caffiene drinks are all flat. So, something that foams might stand out.

  • by Krach42 ( 227798 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @03:06AM (#13939087) Homepage Journal
    Dude... shut the hell up. I work with real programmers, where if we get something wrong it hits millions if not billions of people, and they all get mad.

    We do "real programming" as much as anyone else.

    Fact is, you can take whatever opinions you have about beer and caffeine, but the average person doesn't share those opinions. The average person sees nothing wrong with either caffeine or beer. This is the reason why Starbuck's makes tons of money, and why any gas station has probably about 1/4 of the beverages that it has for sale which are alcoholic.

    Your small little prudish subsection of the world may not give a shit about caffeinated beer, but neither will devout Mormons, Arabs, nor dry counties all around the country. Just because you don't give a shit, doesn't mean no one else will. Especially even among even "real" programmers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:38AM (#13939350)
    Mod parent up - Cadburys and Mars are just as big, Cadburys Schweps also I believe own the Coca Cola franchise in Europe.
    Nestle only seems big because it bought out British Rowntrees in the late 80's early 90's, which made Fruit Pastels, Kitkats, Smarties, Polos etc...
  • by leomekenkamp ( 566309 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:54AM (#13939395)

    Now, ask yourself, is that obvious? I think this patent is perfectly acceptable.

    No, IT IS A BLOODY RECEPY!

    Since when has it become acceptable to grant patents on recepies? Even the Coca Cola Company does NOT have (and should not have) a patent on cola.

    The american 'IP'-quest is getting more and more rediculous by the day.

  • by leomekenkamp ( 566309 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @06:09AM (#13939625)

    You set out to do something else, but you have just proven to me that the patent-idiocy is so wide-spread that it is even infecting ppl who otherwise are mostly modded positively.

    Once again: it is a recipe. Coca Cola company *never* got a patent on cola; in fact their recipe is a closely guarded company secret. Why is that? McD's *never* had a patent on a Big Mac (do have trademark though). No Michelin-starred chef *ever* patented a new recipe. Why is that?

    Patents are there only for the benefit of society. Let me repeat that: for the _benefit_ of _society_. Where is the benefit of granting patents on recipes? There is none. Normal market pressures will cause the smallest restaurants to the biggest food-multinationals to make new products *if the market demands it*. People want to taste something new, so they buy and taste it.

    There is no need whatsoever to grant someone a monopoly on a 'new' recipe. Coca Cola company did not need it, Nestle should not need it.

  • by Omestes ( 471991 ) <omestes@gmail . c om> on Thursday November 03, 2005 @07:10AM (#13939763) Homepage Journal
    I then must worry about "mission ciritcal" NORMAL people, like ambulance drivers and firefighters...

    Wait. Every time you drive a car someone is at risk. Screw the don't drink and drive thing, we need don't drink a coke and drive!

    Moderation. Yes, repeat that word. Real adults know their limits. Sure a pot of coffee will make me purform less well, but 2-3 cups has no real mental imparement. (for me), and thus I indulge.

    Fat foods, and a lazy life style could also hinder their abilities. As could dating. Freindship. Or anything else causing stress.

  • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @09:41AM (#13940260)
    Cloning the exact taste of Coke wouldn't be that hard if you threw a bunch of scientists at it. The reason it isn't done, is because as soon as you put out a product (CokeRipoff), and say it tastes just like Coke, you're admitting that Coke is the best. People will cease to buy your original product, Pepsi?, and buy Coke, because you are saying Coke is the good product. Some people will buy CokeRipoff, however, they know they aren't buying the real Coke, and will only buy CokeRipoff if, it is much cheaper, and others won't know about it.

    This can be seen with the fragrance industry. The only reason they can sell a fragrance for $100 a bottle, is because people believe it's the real thing, and that they need the real thing. It could easily be produced and sold for much cheaper, which it sometimes is, but is often not bought by most, even at extreme savings, because they don't get the status of saying they are wearing a $100 fragrance.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...