• Please visit and share your knowledge at our sister communities:
  • If you have not, please join our official Homebrewing Facebook Group!

    Homebrewing Facebook Group

Homebrew Competition Rules

Homebrew Talk

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

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

Latest posts

Back
Top