Homebrew Competition Rules

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

TheCrowsNest

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
97
Reaction score
2
Location
Redondo Beach, CA
I was reading through some rules on the Sam Adams Patriot competition and saw this:

Should your homebrew be selected as the Grand Champion, you and your Co-Brewer must assign any and all patent and intellectual property rights in your brew to The Boston Beer Company if requested.

I've seen this before but don't understand it. Can someone explain?
 
Win competition, they keep your beer and they own it. You get screwed, but some notoriety.
 
Slightly more nuanced: If they choose your beer and ask you to assign your rights to the name, recipe, or process, you won't actually be named Grand Champion unless you agree to do so.

Basically, they want to make it again and make money from the beer if it becomes a hit. And, more importantly, they don't want you to create any problems or demand a share of the profits.
 
Slightly more nuanced: If they choose your beer and ask you to assign your rights to the name, recipe, or process, you won't actually be named Grand Champion unless you agree to do so.

Basically, they want to make it again and make money from the beer if it becomes a hit. And, more importantly, they don't want you to create any problems or demand a share of the profits.


This....quite common in most pro am type comps
 
As I read it, and maybe I'm wrong, but "any and all patent and intellectual property rights" would go so far as to cover your process as well. For example, if you had invented the hopback let's say, or continuous hopping, or something else that was integral to how the beer you make is produced, then they have permission to use your process. As I read it.
 
As I read it, and maybe I'm wrong, but "any and all patent and intellectual property rights" would go so far as to cover your process as well. For example, if you had invented the hopback let's say, or continuous hopping, or something else that was integral to how the beer you make is produced, then they have permission to use your process. As I read it.

More than just permission to use it, they would own the IP rights to the idea/device as if they had invented it. They could then effectively prevent you from using that process, or from possibly selling the idea/invention to another brewery.
 
More than just permission to use it, they would own the IP rights to the idea/device as if they had invented it. They could then effectively prevent you from using that process, or from possibly selling the idea/invention to another brewery.

But they couldn't do any of this unless you were stupid enough to sign on. I can understand submitting a beer recipe, but why would anyone submit their new process/device?
 
I was looking to enter in quite a few competitions now and many have the same or similar phraseiology. Basically you make an award winning beer...and yes you'll be recognized as the winner of the competition; however, you sacrifice your beer. The brewery or whoever sponsored the event will own the recipe and can mass produce it under their own name and you'll no longer get any credit for it.

So instead I stick with the events I can actually own my beer while winning the show. (Just won the stout category in a competition over the weekend and still own my beer!)
 
FWIW, Sam Adams (at least for last years competition) produced and sold a six pack mix of the six best beers from the homebrew competition. Each one had a picture of the homebrewer.

For me, I don't like the idea of signing over rights either. I have not and, at least up until now, do not plan on entering competitions like this one.
 
The very reason i stopped reading or caring when I got to that part. F that. I ain't interested in letting them take all the credit for something they had no part in creating to start with. Makes me think they're keeping their finger on the pulse of the home craft brewing scene that way. It'd keep their offerings more "current" imo...
 
If you don't like the rules, don't enter. That's certainly your choice.

I will say, though, that beer has four ingredients (other than some specialty beers). Sure, there are lots of ways to combine yeast, water, hops and malt- but it's not like designing a recipe is rocket surgery ;).

There are a couple of brewers on this forum that say things like, "Help me with my recipe- but it's a secret that I can't post!". Hey, that's fine- keep it a secret. But realize that many of the best brewers have probably come up with something incredibly similar in the past, and that your recipe is probably not going to be life-changing for you or anyone else!

A standard release is just that- standard. If you win, you get your name and likeness on the bottle, and the grand prize. For many people, that's more than enough recognition. If it's not your cup of tea, then no need to enter. But then, don't complain about it either.
 
This has been brought up before. Search around. The Brewing Network did and interview with Jim Koch and ask him specifically about this. He basically said they had to put that in there so that if you win and they make your beer, you won't come back and sue them. In the end you lose nothing. You can make the beer again and spin in a circle and fart in the flame and call it different. Calm down.
 
Chances are if your beer requires some really inventive process they are either not going to chose to reproduce it or they are going to reproduce it as best they can with the means available to them. I can't see SA trying to build production-level prototypes to make one beer in a six pack that will have limited run on the off chance it is popular enough to brew again. Too much time, money and risk involved for something that is basically a niche product in a niche market.

This is something to contemplate as a homebrewer, especially if you have further ambitions in brewing. When you assign the IP and patent rights you are giving them everything with the beer. Not just the process, recipe or name. It's also your ability to reproduce the recipe, sell the recipe, use the recipe at a future brewery, share it with other breweries and likely do anything with a recipe very similar to the one you assigned to them. However if you have no ambitions with your homebrew beyond personal enjoyment then it may not be a big deal.
 
This has been brought up before. Search around. The Brewing Network did and interview with Jim Koch and ask him specifically about this. He basically said they had to put that in there so that if you win and they make your beer, you won't come back and sue them. In the end you lose nothing. You can make the beer again and spin in a circle and fart in the flame and call it different. Calm down.



Yes, they are just trying to protect themselves, but if you have any commercial interest in brewing, then you might not want to submit any beers.

I am a HUGE fan of Boston Beer Co, but here are two important reasons to not enter:

1. You actually own a patent, have a pending patent, or plan to submit an application for a patent for brewing and you used that IP while making the beer that you are considering submitting.

2. You have any current or future commercial interest in your beer. Even if Jim Koch says that it is only to protect themselves, he may not be running the company in 5 years or whenever you plan on brewing for income, and somebody else may have a different idea about who is allowed to use the IP.
 
With all due respect to Boston Beer Co., I would more willingly accept the clause if there were an expiration to it.
 
With all due respect to Boston Beer Co., I would more willingly accept the clause if there were an expiration to it.

I'd prefer that they write an agreement that allows Boston Beer Co. to permanently use the homebrewer's recipe, name, process, etc. without the home-brewer completely giving up all rights to the IP.
 
Hah!

You guys realize that recipes are not considered IP, right? They cannot be copyrighted. And as such, they cannot prevent you from brewing it - even on a commercial level, as long as you call it something different - even if you've signed all such rights over to them.
 
chip82 said:
emjay, I believe there is a difference between IP and copyrighting. IP is keeping a recipe secret, think Coke or KFC. If they were copywritten, then it would become public knowledge of what they recipe is. You cannot sue over IP unless someone has illegally obtained the information, but it is still hard to prove in court where the IP, recipe, came from. Plus, if you told your buddy, or a forum, about the recipe before you signed over the IP to another company, then it is no longer a secret within industry.

Nope. IP is intellectual property. It's not necessarily secret, and in fact, copyright is a type of IP.

If you write a book, for instance, the contents of it are YOUR intellectual property... with a few exceptions. One of these exceptions which has come up many times in this forum, for obvious reasons, are RECIPE books. With recipe books, some or most of it may indeed be copyrighted, but the actual recipe portions of these books have been deemed non-copyrightable. This is why people can legally post recipes here from Brewing Classic Styles or any other book on the market.

What you're thinking of is ALSO intellectual property, but only a small part of it, known as trade secrets.

If you want to read up a bit more on IP, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Now... there's a tiny theoretical possibility that they COULD prevent you from brewing this beer in the future, but it has little to do with IP or any "rights" that may be conferred. It would probably have to take the form of something along the lines of a non-compete agreement. And the state laws governing non-competes are so strict that, not only do they always REQUIRE time limits (among other things), but an agreement like this doesn't seem to be enforceable anywhere anyways, as it falls outside the definition of reasonable protection. And if you want to go one step further and remove even the slightest possibility, make your recipe public BEFORE signing any such agreement, and it would be absolutely unenforceable because it would in no way legitimately protect the business (since it could no longer be considered a trade secret).

Of course, because such a document would really be virtually unenforceable, the chances that you'd even have to sign one would be slim to none. And if it does come up, you can just decide not to sign it at THAT point. But the legalese is really only there to protect themselves by having proof that you agree that you've been fairly compensated, rather than risking a legal claim that people are owed even more. There's really nothing to be legitimately concerned about, even if you DO plan on going pro.
 
Such catch all clauses exist to prevent lawsuits from the winning party and are in use pretty much everytime the participant has to submit possible IP. It's as simple as that. You enter, you can't ask for a share of the profits afterward because the recipe/process/technique "isn't yours" anymore. You can still brew it at your place or even in a commercial setting if you want. Such is the nature of recipes: change 2-3 things, slap a new name on it and voila ! It's not as if the winning recipe was ever a trade secret (ie. working at coke and running away with the secret only to change a single ingredient). The grist of many commercial beers is known because of leaked information or even published and I doubt a lot of homebrewers have gotten phone calls asking them to stop brewing Guinness or Moose Drool at home.

I have no doubt that such a clause is pretty much unecessary (or even unenforceable), but in the off chance that someone wanted to make a fuss (ie. preventing the recipe's publication in a magazine, asking for a share of the pie, etc.) it can help prevent the loss of thousands of dollars in litigation fees by showing consent to compensation in exchange of the recipe.
 
chip82 said:
I guess i should add, when referring to the recipe, the intellectual property is a trade secret. thus, it is not copyrightable. sorry if the earlier post causes any confusion.

Well, I just read this post, but I'm not going to bother editing mine. The only real problems with your post is that a) copyright is indeed a form of intellectual property, and b) you are treating trade secrets and IP as synonymous, when that is not the case. Trade secrets are ALWAYS intellectual property, but IP is not always trade secrets... make sense? If you substitute the word for trade secrets everywhere that you wrote IP in your original post, then it'd be largely correct.
 
jfr1111 said:
Such catch all clauses exist to prevent lawsuits from the winning party and are in use pretty much everytime the participant has to submit possible IP. It's as simple as that. You enter, you can't ask for a share of the profits afterward because the recipe/process/technique "isn't yours" anymore. You can still brew it at your place or even in a commercial setting if you want. Such is the nature of recipes: change 2-3 things, slap a new name on it and voila ! It's not as if the winning recipe was ever a trade secret (ie. working at coke and running away with the secret only to change a single ingredient). The grist of many commercial beers is known because of leaked information or even published and I doubt a lot of homebrewers have gotten phone calls asking them to stop brewing Guinness or Moose Drool at home.

I have no doubt that such a clause is pretty much unecessary, but in the off chance that someone wanted to make a fuss (ie. preventing the recipe's publication in a magazine, asking for a share of the pie, etc.) it can help prevent the loss of thousands of dollars in litigation fees.

This is all true except for one part... you would NOT even need to change anything about the recipe. But you likely wouldn't be able to use whatever name Sam Adams releases the beer under, so if it's a name you plan to eventually use, you might want to enter it into the comp with a different name entirely.
 
Well, I just read this post, but I'm not going to bother editing mine. The only real problems with your post is that a) copyright is indeed a firm of intellectual property, and b) you are treating trade secrets and IP as synonymous, when that is not the case. Trade secrets are ALWAYS intellectual property, but IP is not always trade secrets... make sense? If you substitute the word for trade secrets everywhere that you wrote IP in your original post, then it'd be largely correct.

The reason trade secrets are trade secrets is largely because copyright laws don't protect them (single recipes) or enforcing copyright would be a nightmare/too costly (manufacturing processes that evolve rapidly for example). So yeah, they are always intellectual property, but not all intellectual property is trade secrets.
 
This is all true except for one part... you would NOT even need to change anything about the recipe. But you likely wouldn't be able to use whatever name Sam Adams releases the beer under, so if it's a name you plan to eventually use, you might want to enter it into the comp with a different name entirely.

Better safe than sorry. In theory, you don't need to change anything (the blatant thievery that is rampant in cookbooks is an example of this), but in practice, it's always better to cover your bases by making some changes. I don't think if Pepsi got a hold of Coke's recipe that they would market it as is, especially since they couldn't market it as "We Stole Coke's Recipe, here it is" Cola.
 
True, but Pepsi getting a hold of Coke's recipe would imply some sort of theft. And if you truly already have intentions to commercialize the brew already, there should be no need no mention Sam Adams in the marketing anyways, since you COULDN'T HAVE, had you not won or even entered (perhaps ironically because you wanted to commercialize it :D)

So it's really an unnecessary precaution. It's your baby, and if that's what you wanted to put on the market, you're not going to want to change it just for the sake of changing it. And if people feel like they're going to have to change it, it will deter them from entering nearly just as much as if they were under the impression they couldn't brew anything like it. So I don't think it's useful to promote that kind of "just in case" thinking, because in these particular circumstances, it just won't be an issue.

Besides, every knowledgeable brewer knows that even the exact same recipe will not produce the exact same beer, unless the process and equipment are also identical (and they won't be).
 
Wow, it's one recipe, one beer everyone. If you're planning on opening a brewery, and planning to be successful enough to really make an impact, you better be talented enough to not have to rely on a single recipe.

Look at Pliny the Elder, the recipe is practically public domain. Did that stop Vinnie? No, Temptation, Salvation, etc. If you're banking on a single recipe for success, it ain't happening.
 
DannPM said:
Wow, it's one recipe, one beer everyone. If you're planning on opening a brewery, and planning to be successful enough to really make an impact, you better be talented enough to not have to rely on a single recipe.

Look at Pliny the Elder, the recipe is practically public domain. Did that stop Vinnie? No, Temptation, Salvation, etc. If you're banking on a single recipe for success, it ain't happening.

While this is mostly true (though there ARE undoubtedly one-hit-wonder breweries), the point is that it doesn't even matter.
 
Hell, there's Stone, they are still looking for their first hit.

*duck and cover*

Regardless of how it might be used practically what is to say you will actually give up the real recipe? Who's to know if you *accidentally* screw up some measures?

This all just seems sorta silly on the part of SA. If they wanted to go ahead and run a batch then I can see them taking the defensive legal position, but to have that as a lead in to a comp? Really?
 
Back
Top