Copyright Coffee

So, for those who don't read the articles on this blog much, we obviously promote Open Source in all aspects of a person's life.

Of course, we also often mention that just because Open Source should be, and in many cases now, can be an option, we also recognize that commerce is a good thing and being able to buy something is a privilege that people should have as an option.

That said, readers or people who don't think Open Source is an option for them, or maybe even think that Open Source is a poor option, might want to re-consider as new copyright / patent restriction may apply to their coffee.

Many people have moved to the individual brewed "pods" from companies like Green Mountain / Keurig.  There are certainly some benefits to using a single brew coffee machine, although for people who drink more than one cup of coffee (or 12oz) of coffee at a sitting, those benifits will begin to dwindle.

One thing that might have been a little inconvenient for people, might have been the lack of coffee options for single serve machines like the keurig.  Yet popular coffee brands and more unique flavours were eventually brought to market.  And, as noted in an article in "The Verge", the patent on the "k-cups" expired in 2012, which prompted many coffee vendors to make their own cups for the machines.

So we now know what the FIRST problem was, for those who are keeping score on Open Source and coffee.  Keurig had a patent, so any company wanting to provide their brands in a k-cup portion, had to obtain a license from Green Mountain.  For a company that publicly prides itself on a more fair supply chain in coffee (especially for the grower, but also for the consumer), they certainly created a barrier to both consumers and even other, already "green / fair trade" coffee companies, with their patent.

Well, this expired patent must have started to cut into the company's bottom line, as they are now poised to release their Keurig 2.0 which will have technology that will not allow unlicensed coffee pods from being used in their machines.

Perhaps those who will be affected by this (the unlicensed brands) might complain, it is certainly the right of Keurig to patent and restrict their technology.  Yet, Keurig might get many more companies to obtain a license, perhaps if most if not all license fees went to support fair trade, and / or perhaps license fees reduced or eliminated for those brands that were already fair trade.

It was interesting that the Verge article suggests that buying coffee might become as annoying as buying printer ink.  In many ways, I think that already happened when single serve pod machines entered the market in the first place.

A Wired article that references the Verge article, goes further to indicate how this type of restrictive patents and copyrights are likely to continue as companies vie for control of things like next generation kitchens and homes, and even into our already expensive medical facilities.

Patents and copyright have been part of our lives for a few hundred years already.  We may be used to it.  Certainly these can ensure we get more for what we make, make a positive impact on our business' bottom like and it might sound like a great idea, yet when it further affects and compounds our expenses in our personal lives, is it really such a good thing?

[ed:  According to a Wall Street Journal article, Keurig anticipated falling sales when the patent expired, yet didn't see that initially. Although an article in food navigator pointed out, Keurig made the new 2.0 machine announcement at 2013 fourth quarter call, even though Keurig announced a 22% increase in revenue for that quarter, although their numbers suggested that unlicensed pods accounted for a record 12% of total pod sales for Keurig machines, which Green Mountain Coffee would not have seen earnings on.)