I made some hummus tonight. I used tahini. Next to the Tahini were
whole sesame seeds. Did I cheat by using the tahini instead of
grinding the seeds myself. (I think that's all tahini is).

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I made some hummus tonight. I used tahini. Next to the Tahini were
> whole sesame seeds. Did I cheat by using the tahini instead of
> grinding the seeds myself. (I think that's all tahini is).
>
I don't think so. If it tasted good with the tahini, then go ahead and use
it. If it did not, then don't use it next time.

Brian Christiansen

On 18 Feb 2006 19:19:45 -0800, wrote:

>I made some hummus tonight. I used tahini. Next to the Tahini were
>whole sesame seeds. Did I cheat by using the tahini instead of
>grinding the seeds myself. (I think that's all tahini is).

It's never cheating to use prepared ingredients, especially if you
don't know how to make the preparation yourself. :-)

(Tahini, when you make it at home, needs a little oil to make it work
in the blender, and usually I also add a little salt, but not always.
I'm almost out of tahini, so I was considering making some from the
excess seeds I have here, but I may not bother.)

serene, gonna make hummus tonight one way or the other

On Sat 18 Feb 2006 08:19:45p, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it ?

> I made some hummus tonight. I used tahini. Next to the Tahini were
> whole sesame seeds. Did I cheat by using the tahini instead of
> grinding the seeds myself. (I think that's all tahini is).

I wouldn't consider that cheating, just an expedient. Was it good? That's
the bottom line.

--
Wayne Boatwright o¿o
____________________

BIOYA

wrote:
> I made some hummus tonight. I used tahini. Next to the Tahini were
> whole sesame seeds. Did I cheat by using the tahini instead of
> grinding the seeds myself. (I think that's all tahini is).

Well that's a new one. I never knew you could cheat on a recipe. I
had always thought a recipe was a guideline, not a rule set in stone.

Kitchen is not a Pharmacy :-)
Guido


--
__________________________________________
http://www.yummyfood.net
Quick and easy international recipes

> ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...
>I made some hummus tonight. I used tahini. Next to the Tahini were
> whole sesame seeds. Did I cheat by using the tahini instead of
> grinding the seeds myself. (I think that's all tahini is).
>

wrote:
> I made some hummus tonight. I used tahini. Next to the Tahini were
> whole sesame seeds. Did I cheat by using the tahini instead of
> grinding the seeds myself. (I think that's all tahini is).

Recipes you find are some other person's idea of how to make that dish.
When you adapt it to your idea, then it's a new recipe.

The whole concept of "cheating" on a recipe is not to understand what a
recipe is. And is not.

Pastorio

wrote:
> I made some hummus tonight. I used tahini. Next to the Tahini were
> whole sesame seeds. Did I cheat by using the tahini instead of
> grinding the seeds myself.

If the hummus recipe said to use tahini and it didn't say to make
tahini how can you be cheating... it's not cheating regardless, taking
kitchen short cuts is not cheating, not so long as the results are not
meaningfully compromised. I don't think there are too many folks, even
those of middle eastern extraction, who actually make their own tahini
anymore.

> (I think that's all tahini is).

Actually preparing tahini is more involved than merely grinding sesame
seeds... anyone who's simply grinding sesame seeds and thinks they're
making tahini, they're not... they are making ground sesame seeds.
Wasn't this exact question posed here and answered (by moi) like a
month ago.

Now I dare someone to point me to a Copyrighted hummus recipe... you'd
have to locate the original towelhead... was probably the thieving
family camel what ate a barrel each of sesame seeds and garbanzos...
and out the other end exited hummus. Didja know that originally the
towelheads hung pita in their latrines for TP... that's how falafel was
born, from wiping that thieving camel's ass. Ever notice how when
those towelheads dine they have that pita wiping technique mastered...
well they don't have flush toilets either, they just wipe and eat! <G>

Anyone wanna hear about how there are so many varieties of dago
saw-seege? hehe

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

Sheldon

On 19 Feb 2006 08:21:32 -0800, Sheldon wrote:

> Now I dare someone to point me to a Copyrighted hummus recipe...

<smipping the rest>
Remember to quit while you're still ahead.
--

Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

sf wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > Now I dare someone to point me to a Copyrighted hummus recipe...
>
> <smipping the rest>
> Remember to quit while you're still ahead.

Thanks, at least someone is clear headed enough to realize I'm winning.
This is a safe bet... don't you think that by now someone would have
produced a Copyrighted recipe (I'm sure a few have been Googling their
fingers raw). No one has because there are none. It's not easy to
obtain a Copyright, the full onus is upon the applicant to prove that
they are the first to have created whatever it is they wish to
Copyright... that's why Patent, Copyright, and Trademark attorneys are
paid three times as much as ordinary attorneys. Anyone can *claim*
they created something but to prove it to the point of obtaining a
Registered Copyright is a whole nother thing. It's fairly simple for
someone to prove they created a cook book (cookbooks are about the
easiest to obtain a Copyright, the bureau doesn't consider the actual
recipes at all, only attendant text). It's not possible to prove or
disprove one created the recipes contained therein (no matter how
embellished with verbiage), and that is why you will never see a recipe
in any cook book that is individually Copyrighted... you can Copyright
the attendant verbiage but not the recipe. You can no sooner Copywrite
a meata balle recipe than a cola drink recipe (regardless the precise
ingredients), and that is why Coke and Pepsi don't have their recipes
Copyrighted, you can no sooner Copyright a cola drink as a meata
balle... that and once Copyright is applied for full disclosure is
manditory, and then the application may not be successful (and then
Coke/Pepsi are screwed)... for any recipe the application won't be
successful, because the full onus is upon yoose to prove that no one
has ever before created a meata balle similar to yours. Similar,
because absolute precision is not required for obtaining a Copyright,
because by the same token just because someone changes one word that
does not circumvent the Copyright, so impreciseness is indeed a
protection. Imagine a book of poetry, if all one needed to do was
rearange a few words to make it their own no one would ever bother to
write poetry for publication. If you have a special family meata
balles recipe that in your mind you think is unique I strongly suggest
you keep it to yourself because you cannot Copyright the meata balle.

You have better odds of Copyrighting "sf" than a recipe.

I know I have a better chance of Copyrighting "meata balles" than
anyone has of Copyrighting their meata balles recipe. In fact were I
to create a meata balles cook book and name it "MEATA BALLES" then my
title would automatically obtain a Registered Copyright... and I can
include whatever meata balles recipes I want. But then there are those
who would claim How can thata be, he'sa not a stinkin' thieving
ignorant WOP! And that's why I win! <G>

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:

> Thanks, at least someone is clear headed enough to realize I'm winning.

You have a wonderfully active imnagination... pity you don't have an
active intelligence.

Win this...

> This is a safe bet... don't you think that by now someone would have
> produced a Copyrighted recipe (I'm sure a few have been Googling their
> fingers raw).

Here, moron. Several copyrighted recipes for new approaches to chicken
coatings in a work that is itself copyrighted in its entirety. I wrote
them entirely. Every word. Every expression. They were copyrighted the
day I printed them out. How convenient and just for us professional writers.

The "Oh, Yeah? Chicken-fry-This" technique
This country-style approach can be used with virtually any meat,
although for the sake of illustrating the approaches in these recipes,
we’ll use cubed beef steak. This same technique works wonderfully with
cubed chicken and turkey thigh meat. Others can simply be plain slices
of meat like pork tenderloin or boneless fresh ham, lamb or veal leg.
Venison and other game.
Good with fish filets, too. Oysters are magical done in any of these
ways. Drain, flour, egg and flour again. Lay them out so they’re not
touching and pop into the fridge for a half hour or so as described
below. Then fry.
The process is to coat the meat with something dry (flour of some
sort), wet that whole package (dipping into an "egg wash"), and coat or
"dredge" that with something dry (either the same or some other flour).
This double dipping ends up creating a crust that flavors and protects
the meat from the heat of cooking.
The traditional recipe has been to coat with a thick layer of wheat
flour as described above and fry it (about 325F) to form a crust. The
steak has then been taken out of the pan and held warm for a few minutes
while making a gravy with the pan juices and fats left over. The gravy
has usually been a slurry of flour and milk stirred into the hot pan
liquids until it thickens. The gravy was poured over the steak and it
has been served that way. Tasty but very high-carb.
Meats and seafood may be done and fried immediately, but for a better
flavor and texture, do the complete breading and lay them out, not
touching, on plastic wrap or wax paper on a platter or tray, uncovered,
and refrigerate for an hour or more. The surface will dry and the crust
will be crisper. If you have time, turning them over after an hour or so
and leaving them in the fridge for another half-hour will dry the other
side as well.
Anything coated like this can be easily frozen without appreciable loss
of quality. Lay the meats out as above and freeze, uncovered, until
solid - no more than a few hours. Then, working quickly so they don’t
thaw, put the pieces into bags and store in the freezer for up to a month.
We’re going to look at several ways to get there without adding many
grams of carbs - several different coatings on the steaks. And the
different coatings will take advantage of seasonings and ingredients
that change the character of the steak each time. The setup in each case
is two flat bowls, one for the egg wash and one for the dry coating
materials.
The actual nutritional figures will depend on how much of the coating
sticks to the meats and how much of the fat is absorbed. My estimate,
based on cooking these dishes, is that you'll use about half of the
coating mix and about half of the egg mixture. In any case, the total
caloric count will be lower than these numbers and the carb counts will
also drop slightly.

Chicken-fried This, Way One
This is a basic approach with traditional seasonings but decidedly
untraditional coating materials. The process used here will apply to all
the recipe variations.
Serves 4
1 cup soy cereal
1 teaspoon seasoned salt
1/2 teaspoon ground white pepper
1/4 teaspoon ground cayenne pepper
1/2 teaspoon granulated garlic
2 eggs
3 tablespoons water
1/4 cup canola oil
4 cube steaks, about 5 ounces each
1/2 cup heavy cream
1/2 teaspoon xanthan gum
In a blender or food processor, combine cereal and seasonings and
process to the texture of coarse breadcrumbs. Pour into a flat plate
wide enough to dip a steak. Whip the egg and water together and pour
into a flat bowl wide enough to dip steak. Melt the bacon fat in a
skillet large enough to hold all the steaks over medium-high heat
(you’re looking for 325F in your electric skillet). Dip steaks into the
crumbs, pressing to get the side well-coated. Turn it over and repeat.
Gently shake off excess crumbs. Dip into the egg on both sides and let
excess egg run back into the plate. Dip back into the crumbs on both
sides to coat. Lay steaks in the skillet and fry until lightly browned.
Gently turn them over and brown the second side. Turn back and forth
several times until the coating is a rich brown color. Remove steaks
from the skillet and hold warm. Pour the cream into the skillet and
sprinkle the xanthan on top of it. Swirl to mix the cream and pan juices
and bring to a boil. Let the gravy boil and reduce a bit until it’s
thick but still pourable. Pour on the steaks and serve.
Per Serving: 582 Calories; 46g Fat (71.3% calories from fat); 39g
Protein; 3g Carbohydrate; trace Dietary Fiber; 222mg Cholesterol; 581mg
Sodium. Exchanges: 0 Grain(Starch); 4 1/2 Lean Meat; 0 Non-Fat Milk; 6
1/2 Fat; 0 Other Carbohydrates.
Bacon fat can be substituted for all or part of the canola oil. Per
Serving: 580 Calories; 45g Fat (71.1% calories from fat); 39g Protein;
3g Carbohydrate; trace Dietary Fiber; 236mg Cholesterol; 652mg Sodium.
Exchanges: 0 Grain(Starch); 4 1/2 Lean Meat; 0 Non-Fat Milk; 6 Fat; 0
Other Carbohydrates.

Chicken-fried This, Way Two
This time, we’ll introduce new coating materials using the same
technique as above. The surface texture will be more like the
traditional recipe and the gravy will be thicker because of the soy
protein powder. The sesame seeds add a pleasant nuttiness to the dish
and add a great deal to pork and poultry versions of it.
Serves 4
2/3 cup soy protein powder
1/4 cup sesame seeds
1/2 teaspoon seasoned salt
1/2 teaspoon white pepper
1/2 teaspoon ground ginger
1/2 teaspoon granulated garlic
2 eggs
2 tablespoons water
few dashes of hot sauce
1/4 cup bacon fat
4 cube steaks, about 5 ounces each
2/3 cup heavy cream
1/2 teaspoon xanthan gum
Combine the protein powder, seeds and seasonings and stir to mix well
(it will be used to coat the meat and some of what’s left will be used
to flavor the gravy). Whip the egg, water and hot sauce together. Dredge
steaks in the dry ingredients, dip into the egg and dip back into the
dry. Fry as above, remove steaks from the skillet and hold warm. Add
cream, xanthan and a tablespoon of dry mix to the skillet and cook,
stirring, until it thickens but is still pourable. Pour over steaks and
serve.
Per Serving: 684 Calories; 53g Fat (70.6% calories from fat); 46g
Protein; 5g Carbohydrate; 2g Dietary Fiber; 249mg Cholesterol; 534mg
Sodium. Exchanges: 0 Grain(Starch); 4 1/2 Lean Meat; 0 Vegetable; 0
Non-Fat Milk; 7 1/2 Fat; 0 Other Carbohydrates.

Chicken-fried This, Way Three
This time we’re Double-Dipping the meats in the egg and dry mixes for a
thicker, richer-tasting coating. Parmesan cheese in the coating and the
gravy changes the spirit of the dish. This way works wonderfully with
turkey breast cutlets and boneless pork chops.
Serving Size: 4
1/2 cup soy protein powder
1/4 cup wheat gluten
1/4 cup Parmesan cheese -- grated
1/4 cup flaxseed meal
1/2 teaspoon seasoned salt
1/2 teaspoon ground white pepper
1/2 teaspoon granulated garlic
1 tablespoon Italian seasoning herbs
2 eggs
2 tablespoons water
1 tablespoon red wine vinegar
1/4 cup olive oil
4 5-ounce cube steaks
2/3 cup heavy cream
1/2 teaspoon xanthan gum
Combine the protein powder, gluten, cheese, meal and seasonings and stir
to mix well (it will be used to coat the meat and some of what's left
will be used to flavor the gravy). Whip the eggs, water and vinegar
together. Dredge steaks in the dry ingredients, dip into the egg and dip
back into the dry. Then repeat - back into the egg and then the dry
again. Fry as above, remove steaks from the skillet and hold warm. Add
cream, xanthan and a tablespoon of dry mix to the skillet and cook,
stirring, until it thickens but is still pourable. Pour over steaks and
serve.
Per Serving: 697 Calories; 53g Fat (68.9% calories from fat); 49g
Protein; 5g Carbohydrate; 2g Dietary Fiber; 240mg Cholesterol; 512mg
Sodium. Exchanges: 0 Grain(Starch); 5 1/2 Lean Meat; 0 Non-Fat Milk; 7
Fat; 0 Other Carbohydrates.

Chicken-fried This, Way Four
This is a radical departure from traditional methods. We’re coating
meat with meat, sorta. I know. Pork rinds have essentially no carbs to
speak of. Have a little faith here. This one is the simplest so far.
Note whipping cream in two places.
Serves 4
1 bag pork rinds (5 ounces)
1/4 cup whipping cream
2 eggs
4 cube steaks, about 5 ounces each
1/2 teaspoon seasoned salt
1/8 teaspoon cayenne pepper
1/4 teaspoon paprika
1/4 teaspoon garlic powder
3 tablespoons oil for frying (canola, soy, peanut, corn - not olive)
1/2 cup whipping cream
1/2 teaspoon xanthan gum
Break the pork rinds into smaller pieces and whirl in a blender or
processor until it looks like medium breadcrumbs. Add seasonings and
process for another 5 seconds. Add oil to skillet over medium-high heat.
Whisk together the cream and eggs. Dip the steaks into the egg mixture
being sure to thoroughly wet them, and then dredge them in the crushed
rinds, pressing to make sure the coverage is good. Fry as above. Remove
from the skillet and hold warm. Add the cream and xanthan to the skillet
and bring to a full boil. Pour over the steaks.
Per Serving: 767 Calories; 60g Fat (71.9% calories from fat); 49g
Protein; 3g Carbohydrate; 2g Dietary Fiber; 293mg Cholesterol; 1076mg
Sodium. Exchanges: 0 Grain(Starch); 4 1/2 Lean Meat; 0 Non-Fat Milk; 6
1/2 Fat; 0 Other Carbohydrates.

If your usual thickheaded notions apply, you're about to argue that
chicken or beef can't be copyrighted and that whipping cream can't be
copyrighted, and that...

And that proves you're a moron. It proves you have no idea what
copyright is. You still don't. After lots of explanations. After being
handed the sources with URLs from the copyright office, University law
sites, articles from publications, American and international.

> No one has because there are none.

You still haven't answered what a copyrighted recipe looks like. How
would one appear to your brilliant legal mind? How would you recognize
it? What are the hallmarks of a copyrighted recipe to your disjointed
mentality?

> It's not easy to obtain a Copyright,

It's an automatic function. Nothing need be proven. Nothing need be
done. As soon as it's in "permanent form," it is legally copyrighted.
Period.

> the full onus is upon the applicant to prove that
> they are the first to have created whatever it is they wish to
> Copyright...

The copyright office doesn't vet applications. You send in your material
and pay the fee and it's automatic. They ask for no proof of any kind.
All they do is register your claim to copyright. Not that you are the
originator of the material. They want the money and their paperwork
filled out properly.

> that's why Patent, Copyright, and Trademark attorneys are
> paid three times as much as ordinary attorneys.

Oh, bullshit. These are intellectual property attorneys. They get paid
like other attorneys.

> Anyone can *claim*
> they created something but to prove it to the point of obtaining a
> Registered Copyright is a whole nother thing.

Jayzus, do you never get tired of talking pure crap on subjects of which
you know nothing?
The whole process of getting a registered copyright is right he
<http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html>

It says, in part, "Your registration becomes effective on the day that
the Copyright Office receives your application, payment, and copy(ies)
in acceptable form. If your submission is in order, you will receive a
certificate of registration in 4 to 5 months."

Being "in order" means that you've filled out the forms properly. They
don't ask for any proof of anything.

> It's fairly simple for
> someone to prove they created a cook book (cookbooks are about the
> easiest to obtain a Copyright, the bureau doesn't consider the actual
> recipes at all, only attendant text). It's not possible to prove or
> disprove one created the recipes contained therein (no matter how
> embellished with verbiage), and that is why you will never see a recipe
> in any cook book that is individually Copyrighted... you can Copyright
> the attendant verbiage but not the recipe.

Hey, blowhole. Define recipe. Do you think that the list of ingredients
is the recipe? Do you think the recipe is the ingredients, headnotes,
directions and endnotes? What do you think a recipe actually is?

> You can no sooner Copywrite
> a meata balle recipe than a cola drink recipe (regardless the precise
> ingredients), and that is why Coke and Pepsi don't have their recipes
> Copyrighted,

Their recipes are copyrighted. By definition. They aren't public.

> you can no sooner Copyright a cola drink as a meata
> balle...

You *still* don't understand what copyright is. It's *only* about the
words used. Not the content of the words. Not about a product. You've
been told that several times and it still hasn't sunk in.

It is absolutely correct that you can't copyright a cola drink or a
meatball. Or anything else solid, tangible or substantial. You don't
copyright the paper of the book - that would be analogous to getting a
copyright on a drink - only the wording of it. Same for any other
literary work. Only the words are copyrightable. Not what they're about.
Not the substance they're printed on.

> that and once Copyright is applied for full disclosure is
> manditory,

Copyright takes two forms. Copyright by existence and, to reinforce
that, registration. Everything written down is automatically
copyrighted. Registering it is for convenience reasons - that is to be
able to fight infringements more effectively.

There's no "disclosure" in getting copyright registration. You send them
a copy of what you want registered - it's already copyrighted - you pay
your money and get your registration if you've filled out their
paperwork properly. No questions asked.

> and then the application may not be successful (and then
> Coke/Pepsi are screwed)...

You still haven't learned the difference between copyright, patent and
trademarking. And, it seems clear you never will.

> for any recipe the application won't be
> successful, because the full onus is upon yoose to prove that no one
> has ever before created a meata balle similar to yours.

That would apply for a patent. The name and likeness could still be
trademarked - so could slogans. *Any words* written about it would be
copyrighted. Automatically, like everything else written and rendered in
permanent form.

> Similar,
> because absolute precision is not required for obtaining a Copyright,

Thirty bucks is required for a registered copyright. De facto copyright
is free.

> because by the same token just because someone changes one word that
> does not circumvent the Copyright, so impreciseness is indeed a
> protection. Imagine a book of poetry, if all one needed to do was
> rearange a few words to make it their own no one would ever bother to
> write poetry for publication.

How utterly ridiculous. No one has talked about "changing one word" but
you. Exact quotations of any passages, even if some others are changed
is infringement. You can't seem to distinguish between a recipe of a few
hundred words and a book. No surprise there.

> If you have a special family meata
> balles recipe that in your mind you think is unique I strongly suggest
> you keep it to yourself because you cannot Copyright the meata balle.

Nobody can copyright a tangible object. Only the accompanying work - the
exact wording, the music, the image of a painting - but not the paper,
not the CD and not the actual canvas-and-paint painting. And not the
Rock of Gibraltar if you write a song about it... Sheesh...

> You have better odds of Copyrighting "sf" than a recipe.

<LOL> Our resident legal expert.

> I know I have a better chance of Copyrighting "meata balles" than
> anyone has of Copyrighting their meata balles recipe. In fact were I
> to create a meata balles cook book and name it "MEATA BALLES" then my
> title would automatically obtain a Registered Copyright...

No. It wouldn't. It would receive a de facto copyright. To have a
registered copyright, you have to send the copyright office a copy and
$30. Then you get your registered copyright. And only then. If the
copyright office hasn't received your paper and money, no registration.
Period.

> and I can
> include whatever meata balles recipes I want. But then there are those
> who would claim How can thata be, he'sa not a stinkin' thieving
> ignorant WOP! And that's why I win! <G>

Your moronic logic still obtains. And, typically, you couple it with an
intransigent ignorance in which you seem to take pride. You're utterly
wrong about what copyright is and is not, what it can do and not do, and
what it applies to and doesn't.

Batting your usual 1000.

Moron.

Pastorio

In article .com>, "Sheldon" > wrote:
>sf wrote:
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>
>> > Now I dare someone to point me to a Copyrighted hummus recipe...
>>
>> <smipping the rest>
>> Remember to quit while you're still ahead.
>
>Thanks, at least someone is clear headed enough to realize I'm winning.
>This is a safe bet... don't you think that by now someone would have
>produced a Copyrighted recipe (I'm sure a few have been Googling their
>fingers raw). No one has because there are none. It's not easy to
>obtain a Copyright, the full onus is upon the applicant to prove that
>they are the first to have created whatever it is they wish to
>Copyright...
[snip]

G'day Shel, me old mate. I have the impression you're confusing
Patent and Copyright. Of course, things might be different over
there, but my understanding of how these things work is:

If "recipe" is regarded as a process it may be patentable like any
other *original* process or product. But it would probably be
bloody difficult to prove "originality" for a household recipe.

If "recipe" is regarded as a description of a process, then copyright
is automatically granted to the author -- though a description
which is nothing more than a direct copy of a previous version
would be plagiarism. Plagiarism would be damn difficult to prove for
an individual recipe; but a book full of the things could give rise to
some legal problems for the perpetrator.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

Phred Pinhead wrote:
I have the impression you're confusing
> Patent and Copyright. Of course, things might be different over
> there, but my understanding of how these things work is:
>
> If "recipe" is regarded as a process it may be patentable like any
> other *original* process or product. But it would probably be
> bloody difficult to prove "originality" for a household recipe.
>
> If "recipe" is regarded as a description of a process, then copyright
> is automatically granted to the author -- though a description
> which is nothing more than a direct copy of a previous version
> would be plagiarism. Plagiarism would be damn difficult to prove for
> an individual recipe; but a book full of the things could give rise to
> some legal problems for the perpetrator.

Pinhead.

Sheldon

In article .com>,
"Sheldon" > wrote:
>Phred Pinhead wrote:
> I have the impression you're confusing
>> Patent and Copyright. Of course, things might be different over
>> there, but my understanding of how these things work is:
>>
>> If "recipe" is regarded as a process it may be patentable like any
>> other *original* process or product. But it would probably be
>> bloody difficult to prove "originality" for a household recipe.
>>
>> If "recipe" is regarded as a description of a process, then copyright
>> is automatically granted to the author -- though a description
>> which is nothing more than a direct copy of a previous version
>> would be plagiarism. Plagiarism would be damn difficult to prove for
>> an individual recipe; but a book full of the things could give rise to
>> some legal problems for the perpetrator.
>
>Pinhead Sheldon

Couldn't come up with a response eh, Shels, me old mate?
Not to worry, we all get old.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Mon 20 Feb 2006 07:46:00a, Thus Spake Zarathustra, or was it Phred?

> In article .com>,
> "Sheldon" > wrote:
>>Phred Pinhead wrote:
>> I have the impression you're confusing
>>> Patent and Copyright. Of course, things might be different over
>>> there, but my understanding of how these things work is:
>>>
>>> If "recipe" is regarded as a process it may be patentable like any
>>> other *original* process or product. But it would probably be
>>> bloody difficult to prove "originality" for a household recipe.
>>>
>>> If "recipe" is regarded as a description of a process, then copyright
>>> is automatically granted to the author -- though a description
>>> which is nothing more than a direct copy of a previous version
>>> would be plagiarism. Plagiarism would be damn difficult to prove for
>>> an individual recipe; but a book full of the things could give rise to
>>> some legal problems for the perpetrator.
>>
>>Pinhead Sheldon
>
> Couldn't come up with a response eh, Shels, me old mate?
> Not to worry, we all get old.
>
> Cheers, Phred.

And some get old and stupid.

--
Wayne Boatwright o¿o
____________________

BIOYA