<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;restaurants&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>BMI Hurting Artists, Yet Again</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/04381116281/bmi-hurting-artists-yet-again.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/04381116281/bmi-hurting-artists-yet-again.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For many years, we've written about how, for all their talk of "helping" artists, ASCAP and BMI are often <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml">harming</a> up-and-coming musicians.  That's because many musicians get their start playing local gigs at coffee shops and restaurants and the like, who often don't pay ASCAP or BMI.  That <i>should</i> be fine, so long as the artists play only original songs, but ASCAP and BMI usually tell venues that they need to pay anyway, just in case someone plays a single covered riff.  TorrentFreak has yet another such story, of a restaurant that <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/music-copyright-police-ruin-artists-gigs-and-coconut-curry-111008/?utm_source=dlvr.it&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">stopped having a local band perform every Friday night</a> after BMI demanded $3,000:
<blockquote><i>
"I said the hell with it! We only have music on Friday nights. It&rsquo;s not worth $3000. How is a neighborhood restaurant running on a razor-thin margin in this economy supposed to afford an extra $3000? So I cancelled the band. Net result? Our customers suffered, local music suffered. A complete lose-lose situation."
<br /><br />
The bottom line to BMI and other collective rights organizations? Your customers are not your enemies. Promoting live music is good for BMI and the artists they collect royalties for. Working together with local businesses rather than trying to bully and intimidate them will leave all parties better off.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, BMI and ASCAP don't really care.  In the end, they're not there to protect the up-and-coming guys, but the huge acts who get the large checks.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/04381116281/bmi-hurting-artists-yet-again.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/04381116281/bmi-hurting-artists-yet-again.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111010/04381116281/bmi-hurting-artists-yet-again.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>making-it-more-expensive</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111010/04381116281</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 08:38:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Restaurant Owner Ordered To Pay BMI $30,450 For 'Illegally Playing' Four Unlicensed Songs</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/11503015533/restaurant-owner-ordered-to-pay-bmi-30450-illegally-playing-four-unlicensed-songs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/11503015533/restaurant-owner-ordered-to-pay-bmi-30450-illegally-playing-four-unlicensed-songs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a id="internal-source-marker_0.27097942570002487" href="http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/9984679/"></a>Most reasonable people would agree that the RIAA's incredibly high <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/06521713462/judge-rejects-riaas-attempt-to-claim-trillions-damages-limewire.shtml" target="_blank">statutory fees</a> for infringement are ridiculous. Of course, this is why reasonable people aren't allowed anywhere near the royalty collecting process. BMI, on the other hand, is right in the middle of the royalty racket and has just wrapped up a successful lawsuit against Fosters, a North Carolina restaurant. For all its hard work "protecting songwriters," BMI <a href="http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/9984679/" target="_blank">will be receiving $30,450 for four "illegally played songs."</a> In addition, Fosters has been ordered to pay $10,700 in legal fees.<br /><br />According to BMI, the royalty collection agency made numerous attempts to collect a yearly fee from Foster's (currently $6,060), but had no success:<br /><blockquote><i>Broadcast Music Incorporated sued Fosters and claimed in court documents that it called the restaurant 56 times and mailed 29 letters. BMI says Fosters ignored its requests to get a license to play music.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>"We've been attempting to resolve this for two years now," said Robbin Ahrold, BMI's vice president of corporate communications and marketing. "It is our obligation when we sign an agreement with these songwriters to be diligent and do what we can do to collect their royalties."<br /></i></blockquote>Fosters' owners have declined to comment on the situation and the filed documents only represent BMI's side of the story. However, reading through the filed communication, an interesting fact jumps out. BMI began sending communication regarding the restaurant's lack of proper licensing back in September of 2009, but it wasn't until <i>May of 2010</i> that BMI even bothered to visit Fosters to verify that the business was actually playing unlicensed music. (From page 32 of the PDF.)<br /><blockquote><i>Due to your lack of response, BMI found it necessary to have our music researcher conduct our own primary research into the music use [sic] at your business. That music researcher visited your business and confirmed that you are in fact publicly performing music which would require a public performance license.<br /></i></blockquote>So, let me get this straight: BMI, out of the blue, starts sending letters demanding payment for music licenses. Restaurant owner logically wonders why he should pay someone he's probably never heard of over $6,000 a year in order to have music reach his diners' ears. BMI continues on like any other collection agency, sending letter after letter demanding payment. Owner still figures this is some sort of quasi-legal shakedown and checks into his options. (The letter on page 31 of the PDF begins with "<i>I understand that you are licensed, or are considering licensing with another performing right [sic] organization and are questioning the need for a BMI Music License</i>.") Only <i>after </i>failing to get Fosters to write them a check for its "services" does BMI even bother to see if it's barking up the right legal tree.<br /><br />To make matters worse, even if BMI was successful in extracting a "music license" fee from Fosters, there's nothing preventing ASCAP or anyone else adding to the restaurant's Accounts Payable folder. And while Fosters may no longer be the target (the restaurant closed recently for matters "unrelated to the lawsuit"), BMI's shakedown attempts are still ongoing. Despite BMI's claims that "lawsuits are rare" (undoubtedly, they prefer settlements), this statement paints a much different picture:<br /><blockquote><i>[BMI] has sued Alley Cat and Andrew Blair's, both in Charlotte, Sharpshooters Sports Bar in Jacksonville, Forty Rod Roadhouse in Mint Hill and White Owl Tavern in Mooresville. WRAL News found a total of 38 suits filed across the country this year.<br /></i></blockquote>
 Of course, BMI has this story <a href="http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/552449" target="_blank">posted at its website</a>, touting it as a report that "explores the value of music and the costs of infringement." It also plays up the Herculean effort it took to mail 29 nearly-identical letters (a close look at the filing reveals multiple copies of the same letter) and make 56 phone calls over a 17-month period. There's no mention of the fact that BMI seemed to have little interest in verifying that it had a valid claim against Fosters until the restaurant refused to cut them a $6,000 check.
<br /><br />
At the end of the day, a Pyrrhic victory is still a victory, no matter how much goodwill gets destroyed in the process. It always helps with the collection cause when a case goes your way. It makes those legal threats just a bit more threatening, and you can't properly "protect the copyrights of your songwriters" without the legal guns to back it up.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/11503015533/restaurant-owner-ordered-to-pay-bmi-30450-illegally-playing-four-unlicensed-songs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/11503015533/restaurant-owner-ordered-to-pay-bmi-30450-illegally-playing-four-unlicensed-songs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/11503015533/restaurant-owner-ordered-to-pay-bmi-30450-illegally-playing-four-unlicensed-songs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-riaa's-statutory-claims-now-seem-almost-reasonable</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110815/11503015533</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:06:24 PST</pubDate>
<title>Restaurant Refuses To Serve TSA Agents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/23490313237/restaurant-refuses-to-serve-tsa-agents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/23490313237/restaurant-refuses-to-serve-tsa-agents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apparently, a Seattle area restaurant (right near the airport) has announced that it's <a href="http://consumerist.com/2011/02/seattle-area-restaurant-wont-serve-tsa-agents.html" target="_blank">refusing to serve TSA agents</a> in protest of the way the TSA treats passengers who wish to fly.  While I think the whole TSA security setup is terrible, an invasion of privacy and does little if anything to actually stop terrorism, I do think this is a bad move.  The restaurant, obviously, is free to refuse service to whomever they choose (within the law, of course), but the TSA agents aren't the ones making the policies here.  I'm really not sure what kind of statement this really makes.  We've already seen that many TSA agents themselves are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101119/10225611947/tsa-agents-absolutely-hate-new-pat-downs-find-them-disgusting-morale-breaking.shtml">fed up with the new rules</a> and are upset at the way people treat them.  I'm not sure that treating those agents worse is really any form of a solution.  The problem is the folks at the top.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/23490313237/restaurant-refuses-to-serve-tsa-agents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/23490313237/restaurant-refuses-to-serve-tsa-agents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110223/23490313237/restaurant-refuses-to-serve-tsa-agents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seems-a-bit-extreme</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110223/23490313237</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:43:49 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Panera's 'Pay What You Want' Restaurants Are Working</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/23482911646/panera-s-pay-what-you-want-restaurants-are-working.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/23482911646/panera-s-pay-what-you-want-restaurants-are-working.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, we noted that Panera Bread was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100518/1505489473.shtml">testing out</a> a "pay what you want" concept restaurant in St. Louis.  It was set up as part of a non-profit charitable foundation, rather than as part of the corporate Panera structure.  However, at the time, I noted that I wasn't sure how well it would do, since "pay what you want" for scarce goods seems like a much more dangerous idea.  I also pointed out that while I was sure many people would pay the "recommended" prices, and some would obviously pay much less, I doubted many would pay <i>more</i> than the recommended prices to make up for those who paid less.  I did note that I hoped to be pleasantly surprised by the results... and now I should admit that I am.
<br /><br />
Declan points us to the news that the company is actually <a href="http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/10/28/pay-what-you-can-panera-in-ne-portland" target="_blank">expanding the effort</a>, with an expected "pay what you want" opening in Portland.  That article also notes that the company has said the <a href="http://special.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/business/24953837-41/panera-pay-customers-nonprofit-restaurant.csp" target="_blank">original one has been a success</a>.  As I expected, the majority of people do just pay the recommended price, with another 15% paying less (or even nothing).  But, a separate 15% actually <i>do</i> pay more than the recommended price.
<br /><br />
I'm still not convinced this kind of offering works that well in all cases, especially with scarce goods, but I think we're beginning to see scenarios under which it can work.  For example, we did recently discuss a study that found "pay what you want" appears to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100716/17423610253.shtml">work much better with a charitable component</a>, which is definitely the case here.  Separately, we've seen that it can work if you really <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/15433510899/one-working-musician-explains-how-pay-what-you-want-works-for-him.shtml">connect with people</a>, and apparently Panera worked hard to really connect with the local community to make this restaurant work.  It'll be worth watching to see if it can replicate that success elsewhere.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/23482911646/panera-s-pay-what-you-want-restaurants-are-working.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/23482911646/panera-s-pay-what-you-want-restaurants-are-working.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/23482911646/panera-s-pay-what-you-want-restaurants-are-working.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-about-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101028/23482911646</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 07:51:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Man Claims Trademark On 'Goats On A Roof'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/10272911063/man-claims-trademark-on-goats-on-a-roof.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/10272911063/man-claims-trademark-on-goats-on-a-roof.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reader t-dogg points us to a WSJ story highlighting the ridiculous situations that come out of trademark law these days.  Apparently Lars Johnson, the owner of Al Johnson's Swedish Restaurant, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704285104575492650336813506.html?mod=ITP_TEST" target="_blank">trademarked putting goats on your building to attract customers</a>.  You see, Al Johnson's Swedish Restaurant has a grass roof, and Lars has goats climb up there to graze.  It's a nice stunt, though, it does seem a bit questionable from a trademark standpoint.  Just because one business uses goats to attract customers, is there really a likelihood of confusion that any other business that also uses goats is somehow associated with the first business?  That seems unlikely.  It's like saying only one restaurant can put up neon signs.  Still, Lars' lawyer believes that his goats on a roof trademark is pretty strong, and they think any food-based business that uses goats to attract customers is worth going after:
<blockquote><i>
Any business that sells food and uses goats to lure customers may be violating the trademark, says Lori Meddings, the restaurant's lawyer.
</i></blockquote>
Naturally, this leads to some ridiculous situations where Lars and his lawyer are concerned about <b>goats randomly attracting interest</b>:
<blockquote><i>
In July, Virginia news outlets reported that <b>goats on a hillside routinely hopped onto a platform under a billboard</b> advertising two International House of Pancakes restaurants. Drivers pulled over to snap pictures, and one IHOP manager was quoted saying he enjoyed the publicity. <b>Mr. Johnson says his lawyer is monitoring the situation in case "they take it a step further."</b> Lisa Hodges, who manages one of the restaurants, says she doesn't plan to intentionally use the goats for marketing. "We can't help it that they climb up there," she says.
</i></blockquote>
Read that again, and let me know if that's how trademark law should work.  Oh, and it's not just live goats.  Apparently fake goats get Lars' goat up as well:
<blockquote><i>
Mr. Johnson says the restaurant's Milwaukee law firm has sent letters to other alleged offenders, such as a gift shop in Wisconsin with a fake goat on its roof. It removed the ersatz ungulate.  
</i></blockquote>
The story notes that since the goats on a roof trademark doesn't extend to other countries, goats on roof restaurants have shown up elsewhere -- and a Canadian goats-on-a-roof restaurant owner has decided not to trademark his own version.  Instead, he prefers to compete in the market place, noting that his restaurant has "a lot more to offer than what's on the roof," and, anyway, he claims his goats are bigger.
<br><br>
This is what we get when we live in an age where people think trademark is <i>property</i> that they can use to prevent others from doing things.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/10272911063/man-claims-trademark-on-goats-on-a-roof.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/10272911063/man-claims-trademark-on-goats-on-a-roof.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100917/10272911063/man-claims-trademark-on-goats-on-a-roof.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>morons-in-a-hurry-or-goats-on-your-roof</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100917/10272911063</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Jul 2010 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/11365410062.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/11365410062.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've discussed over and over again how a lack of copyright protection in the fashion industry <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=fashion+industry&#038;tid=&#038;aid=&#038;searchin=stories">helps that industry thrive</a>, because it helps disseminate fashion trends faster, helps better segment markets and (most importantly) gives designers more reasons to keep working on the <i>next</i> thing to stay ahead of the competition.  It's a great example of a creative industry that is highly competitive and highly innovative without copyright.  Other industries where we've seen similar things include <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070910/224932.shtml">the magic industry</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/0131277046.shtml">stand up comedy</a>.  At times, we've also <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070627/175916.shtml">mentioned</a> the restaurant business, but haven't looked at it in any great detail.
<br /><br />
Reader  Ephraim points us to a recent post at the Freakonomics blog that <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/who-owns-the-korean-taco/" target="_blank">highlights how the restaurant business absolutely thrives creatively, despite a lack of copyright protection</a>.  The main example: the rise of Korean taco trucks in LA.  As you may or may not know (and trust me, you're better off if you are familiar with this trend), a few years back, some enterprising folks set up a Korean taco truck in LA called Kogi.  It quickly became a <i>huge sensation</i>, in part because the food is awesome and in part through smart marketing, including being one of the first food establishments to actively embrace Twitter.
<br /><br />
But what happened next is quite interesting.  Throughout LA (and now around the country) there's been an explosion of Korean taco trucks.  And, it's not just limited to trucks.  As the article notes, the large chain Baja Fresh is now offering Korean tacos as well.  Believers in strong copyright have trouble explaining why this happens.  According to them, without copyright as an "incentive to create" people won't innovate because they can't be rewarded, but that's not what's happening at all:
<blockquote><i>
As readers of our past posts know, the conventional wisdom says that in a system like this no one should innovate. Copyright's raison d'etre is to promote creativity by protecting creators from pirates. But in the food world, pirates are everywhere. By this logic, we ought to be consigned to uninspired and traditional food choices. In short, the Korean taco should not exist.
<br /><br />
<b>But the real world does not follow this logic. In fact, we live in a golden age of cuisine.</b> Thousands of new dishes are created every year in the nation's restaurants. The quality of American cuisine is very high. The so-called molecular gastronomy movement has innovated in myriad (and often bizarre) ways that have filtered down to more modest restaurants all over the world. Television shows such as Top Chef and Iron Chef challenge contestants to mix and match improbable combinations of ingredients with little warning or time. Our contemporary food culture, in short, not only offers creativity; it increasingly worships creativity--and many of us worship it right back.
</i></blockquote>
So why isn't the "theory" matching up with reality?  The author's come up with a few theories, but it seems to me that the biggest reason is the same one why the arguments that copyright is needed to get people paid is so wrong: they're not selling copyright.  They're selling a product.  And you can still sell your product whether or not someone can copy you.  In fact, if someone can copy you, you have incentives to keep innovating and adding extra value that the buyer can only get from you -- such as prestige or ambiance or experience.
<br /><br />
The authors also point out another reason (similar to the one we've noted about comedians), which is that there are <i>social norms</i> involved as well, focused on reputation.  If you're seen as just copying the works of others, you are looked down upon, and reputation is quite important in these fields.  And, of course, reputation and social norms function just fine without copyright.
<br /><br />
The authors of the blog post conclude with a dead-on assessment:
<blockquote><i>
The key point is that culinary creativity is flourishing, and it doesn't depend on copyright. Like fashion, food challenges our preconceptions about the economics of innovation--and perhaps should challenge our legal rules as well.
</i></blockquote>
Pretty much everywhere we look, when we find industries or fields where copyright doesn't exist or isn't relied upon, we see the same thing: much higher levels of competition, more and faster innovation and an overall thriving industry.  This is the kind of actual evidence that never seems to be discussed in debates over strengthening copyright laws, but should be.  It also explains the supposedly "counterintuitive" <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/0933449895.shtml">research</a> that has shown as there has been less respect for copyright in movies, music and books... the rate of production for each of those has increased as well (again, contrary to what copyright system defenders will tell you).
<br /><br />
At what point can we put the "without copyright no one would create new content" statement into the mythbin of history?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/11365410062.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/11365410062.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100702/11365410062.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yet-again</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100702/11365410062</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:30:03 PST</pubDate>
<title>UK Court Shoots Down Fee Hike For Pubs, Restaurants &#038; Hotels</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100215/0222168165.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100215/0222168165.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the last few years, we've seen collections societies around the world do whatever possible to bring in more money -- most often by either trying to hike up their fees and by trying to collect from more places/venues -- even when those claims are often quite a stretch.  <a href="http://flickr.com/astroturtle">Luis Esteves</a> alerts us to the news that, over in the UK, one of the local collections societies, PPL, has <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8513734.stm" target="_blank">lost a lawsuit</a> concerning its fee hike back in 2005 -- meaning that pubs, restaurants and hotels that play music in the UK may be getting somewhere around &pound;20m in revenue <i>back</i> from PPL.  While this is one small victory against the rapid expansion of these groups, it's still worth noting that these groups, often with the backing of the government, are almost always rent seeking -- looking for more ways to get money out of organizations and individuals.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100215/0222168165.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100215/0222168165.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100215/0222168165.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>give-the-money-back</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100215/0222168165</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:08:20 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Do Morons In A Hurry Like Lettuce Restaurants?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/0331105347.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/0331105347.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ First it was a trademark fight over <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090605/0803465138.shtml">potatoes</a>, and now lettuce?  <a href="http://twitter.com/ericgoldman/statuses/2283566383" target="_new">Eric Goldman</a> points us to a trademark fight <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7070430/Lettuce-TM-Ruling" target="_new">over the use of the word "Lettuce" in the name of a restaurant</a>.  You see, there's a restaurant chain called Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, who apparently got the trademark on "LETTUCE" when used in restaurant or catering businesses.  Yet, a couple of folks, apparently blissfully unaware of such a trademark, tried to open up a restaurant called "Lettuce mix."  When confronted over this issue, they covered their original sign with a banner that read: "Let us be!" and "Name pending..." but with images of heads of lettuce.
<br /><br />
Now, even if you accept that it makes sense for Lettuce Entertain You to own the trademark on "LETTUCE" in such situations, it would seem like what the new restaurant owners did was reasonable.  Not so, according to LEYE.  It's claiming that the new name pending banner still violates its trademark.  Either way, the Lettuce mix owners are fighting back against the entire trademark claim over the word lettuce, and put up that other banner to call some attention to the trademark threat.
<br /><br />
While the battle over the larger trademark issue will continue, in the meantime, the judge in the case denied the injunction request against the temporary banner, noting that the banner itself protesting the trademark dispute isn't actually "use in commerce" and thus, is not covered by trademark law.
<br /><br />
Either way... really?  There's a legal battle going on as to whether or not you can use the word "lettuce" (or even a homonym with an image of lettuce) in the name of a <i>salad bar</i>?  What is the world coming to?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/0331105347.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/0331105347.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090624/0331105347.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lettuce-be</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090624/0331105347</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:22:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>That Whole Free Food Trend...</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090417/0302234539.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090417/0302234539.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the past few months there have been a variety of stories about restaurant chains offering special "free" promotions and people keep submitting them -- such as this one about <a href="http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1890709,00.html?xid=rss-biztech-yahoo" target="_new">Denny's recent experiences with free food promotions</a>.  I haven't been posting such stories, because the economics of free food is very different than the economics of free content -- and I'm not sure there's really that much to learn from the restaurant examples.  For the chains that have done this, it's been somewhat successful (Denny's especially, for leading the way).  The free food has ended up bringing in more paying customers in addition to the "free riders," so it's paid off.  However, it does seem a bit riskier than using "free content" in a business model.  The marginal cost of offering up free content is nothing.  The marginal cost of free food, however, can be substantial.  So, while it's an interesting model to look at -- and the success of the experiments so far shows how "free" can absolutely work as a promotion -- I'm not sure the free food promotions really teach us all that much about the use of free in the digital realm.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090417/0302234539.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090417/0302234539.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090417/0302234539.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>interesting,-but...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090417/0302234539</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:22:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Even Restaurant Critics Are Recognizing How Trademark Is Being Abused</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090108/0223463330.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090108/0223463330.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reader Glenn points us to a blog post by NY Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni, where he points out just how <a href="http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/blame-that-name/?hp" target="_new">ridiculous it is that a restaurant in NY is being forced to change its name</a> over a trademark dispute.  The restaurant was originally called Forge, shortened from owner Marc Forgione's last name.  However, a restaurant in Miami called The Forge sued Forge claiming a trademark violation, saying: "You can't open a restaurant on somebody's coattails. It's just not legal."
<br /><br />
Well, first of all, it's actually <i>perfectly legal</i> to open a restaurant on somebody's coattails.  See all those different pizza places or fast food joints?  They all started somewhere, and others copied the idea -- and we all think that's a good thing, because it's called competition.  But, more importantly, there's no indication whatsoever that Forge was even remotely riding on The Forge's coattails, or that any diner in New York would somehow be confused that Forge was somehow connected to the (very different style) Miami restaurant.  As Bruni writes:
<blockquote><i>
How likely is it, really, that a patron of the Miami Beach restaurant The Forge is going to be looking for an offshoot of it in New York, when the Miami Beach restaurant hasn't advertised or promoted such an offshoot?
<br /><br />
How likely is it that, among the gazillion restaurants in New York, this patron will find his or her way to Mr. Forgione's Forge and, after looking at its rustic, brick-walled setting, mistake it as a sibling to a place in Miami Beach whose waiters apparently wear bow ties?
<br /><br />
How many diners are really going to be lining Mr. Forgione's pockets with money that rightfully belongs near the Everglades, or making assumptions about The Forge in Miami Beach based on meals at Forge in TriBeCa? Especially in an Internet era when diners are better informed than ever?
</i></blockquote>
When trademark disputes are even getting angry rants from food critics, you have to think something is seriously wrong with the way trademark law is working these days.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090108/0223463330.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090108/0223463330.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090108/0223463330.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>forge-this</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090108/0223463330</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:15:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>We're Still Debating Whether Or Not Free WiFi Is Good For Business?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080811/0310131942.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080811/0310131942.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We thought that the whole debate over whether or not free WiFi helped businesses like restaurants had been settled <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20040803/1242240.shtml">years ago</a> when restaurants like Panera shared some data on how much more business it drove.  However, it seems some are still resisting this, so we get yet another series of articles <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/149620/2008/08/.html?tk=rss_news" target="_new">asking whether or not free WiFi is good for business</a>.  There are definitely more businesses offering it these days, so that should be something of an answer itself.  But it's surprising to see someone in the article include that old line about how restaurants are worried about people clogging up its tables.  We've seen reports in the past showing that free WiFi actually tends to bring in people during <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20030630/1251209.shtml">off-peak</a> times.  As for the peak times?  While there may be <i>some</i> freeloaders, it's not all that pleasant for them to hang out in a crowded restaurant or cafe either.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080811/0310131942.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080811/0310131942.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080811/0310131942.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wasn't-this-settled-already?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080811/0310131942</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:17:12 PST</pubDate>
<title>Ordering Your Meal Via A Computers: A Gimmick Or Useful?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080302/221542397.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080302/221542397.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I recently flew on Richard Branson's new Virgin America airline, and one of the nice features was the fact that you could order food or drinks via the touchscreen on the back of the seat in front of you.  It made the process a lot more efficient.  Apparently, a number of restaurants are starting to feel the same way, as these <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,142799-pg,1/article.html" target="_new">electronic menus are becoming more popular</a> in restaurants.  What's interesting, though, is that people seem to have widely divergent views on the things.  Some people love them, and find them more useful, while others think they're an annoying gimmick.  The restaurants have found that people tend to spend more, and restaurants probably save even more money on needing a smaller wait staff.  The article notes some other innovations that are being tested, including the idea of allowing people to order in a restaurant using their own laptops or mobile phones connected to the restaurant WiFi network (which may run into some problems concerning an Apple <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071227/132242.shtml">patent</a> on the concept).  Of course, those restaurants still need waiters to deliver the food -- unless they follow the path of the restaurant we described last summer that had built a somewhat complex set of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070827/025429.shtml">metal rails</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080302/221542397.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080302/221542397.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080302/221542397.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>may-depend-on-your-mood</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080302/221542397</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>German Restaurant Ditches Waiters, Sends Food To Diners On Metal Slide Rails</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070827/025429.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070827/025429.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've definitely seen restaurants <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060724/158223.shtml">embrace technology</a> and automation to bizarre ends before, but apparently a new restaurant in Germany is taking that to extremes.  The Nuremberg-based <i>'s Blaggers</i> has <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501086,00.html">completely replaced waiters with an automated system</a> (via <a href="http://www.therawfeed.com/2007/08/fully-automated-restaurant-opens-in.html">The Raw Feed</a>).  While there have certainly been fast food restaurants that have let patrons order themselves, in this case, it's a sit-down restaurant.  Diners order their meals via a touchscreen, which is relayed to the kitchen which (and this turns out to be important) is upstairs from the dining area.  Then, using a special hotpot that connects to a bunch of <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,24222,00.html">spiral steel rails</a> your food is delivered by gravity power.  The touchscreen actually keeps you up to date, as well, telling you how long it'll be until your food is delivered.  The terminals also accept payment.  Of course, the article doesn't explain how the cleanup process works... Perhaps diners can send the finished dishes down to a dishwasher in the basement?  The guy behind it is hoping to license the offering to other restaurants (including McDonald's), but from the early reviews of his own restaurant, it sounds like people have been coming for the novelty, but some are a bit turned off by the mechanical nature of everything (and one person even compared it to the machinery used to feed pigs on large farms).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070827/025429.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070827/025429.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070827/025429.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>do-you-tip-the-rails?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070827/025429</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>