Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

hmm sounds like Pepe's in CT should contact the IP lawyer ;-)

Pearl is a better restaurant. It's also much more ambitious. Swan is the place to go for raw West coast oysters and crab louie salad, it really is just an oyster bar run by a family that have been wholesaling fish in SF for a long time. They also do a big retailing business delivering their fish to SF's upper crust families.

I think Rebecca used Swan as a jumping-off point for her own ideas. They don't do much cooking at Swan other than soup.

I love them both. I hit Swan every time I go to SF. If you haven't been it's a must.

"Pearl is a better restaurant. It's also much more ambitious. Swan is the place to go for raw West coast oysters and crab louie salad, it really is just an oyster bar run by a family that have been wholesaling fish in SF for a long time. They also do a big retailing business delivering their fish to SF's upper crust families.

I think Rebecca used Swan as a jumping-off point for her own ideas. They don't do much cooking at Swan other than soup."

Thanks you VERY much for that post... the Swan argument has been parroted ad nauseum by people who apparently do not know what they are talking about, knowing nothing baout what Swan actually is.

glad that is out in the open...

As a consumer I'm pro-competition. Businesses outside of food service don't operate this way. They patent, trademark, or copyright if they want to protect something. Do we really want a set of de facto restaurant monopolies? How is this good for me? And don't give me a 'this stifles creativity crap'. Restaurants still will innovate to compete without any protection.

Ed, this is your third article on Serious Eats about the dispute; all three of them have been decidedly in Charles's corner. On another comment thread you wrote, "Yes, I am friendly with Rebecca, but I don't know why that's germane to this discussion." Could you elaborate on your relationship? It makes it hard to figure out how much of your opinion is colored by your personal relationship.

here's the link: http://www.amateurgourmet.com/the_amateur_gourmet/2005/08/cheating_on_pea.html

But I also found a beleaguered Ed McFarland, in way over his head as he tries to make sense of all this. McFarland held a press conference in which (according to Grub Street) he said the following: "I believe her action has no merit. I harbor no ill will and wish her safely to port." His lawyer, Alan Serrins, followed with the following bit of disingenuousness: "I didn't know Caesar salad and lobsters are protected under the intellectual-property laws."

How is that disingenuous? I'm an attorney, and I can tell you that, unless McFarland signed some sort of non-disclosure agreement when he worked for POB, Caesar salad, lobsters and other recipes most definitely are NOT protected under the intellectual property laws. His lawyer is absolutely right.

Her only claim is trade dress infringement -- i.e., that the overall look and feel of her place is inherenly distinctive, and that his place is so similar to hers that it could confuse or deceive customers into thinking that the restaurants are affiliated. The recipes and food will likely play only a minor role in this analysis. I seriously doubt she can win given that the look and style of the restaurant isn't really all that distinctive.

I have to agree with greenfield -- your take on this case is pretty biased.

As I've said before I am friendly with Rebecca, but you don't have to be a pal of hers to find what Ed McFarland did problemmatic. I find the whole thing sad and depressing for all involved. I wish Ed hadn't opened Ed's and I wish Rebecca hadn't sued. As I said in my post, there aren't going to be any winners here.

Ed-Greenfield brings up a strong point. Obviously your friendship with Ms. Charles is creating a bias in your writings on this subject. Let me ask you a question, clearly you reached out to Ms. Charles while writing these articles given the quotes that were not in the NYTimes article. However, you don't make it clear if you reached out to Mr. McFarland? So I'm going to ask, did you? Did you talk to him while you ate at his restaurant yesterday or get his side of the story? If you did, great, please let us know his side, but if not, then your credibility as a fair and balanced writer just went down the tubes.

The real loser in this story is not who ever loses the lawsuit, but the consumer.

Ed is right - any psychologist will tell you this - this is not about intellectual property. This is about " a violation of trust, resentment, and betrayal ". When we feel hurt and betrayed we all are inclined to go out on financially and emotionally exhausting campaigns which make no sense commercially.

I think the people who invented the buffalo wings have a huge case. Since they serve them virtually everywhere. People copy food and recipes all the time. Hell I use one of Emeril's fried chicken recipes (one of 100's) and call it mine. I also agree that I feel bad that the trust issue was breeched.
If I were Ed I would make croutons out of something else and put my own mark on the world.

"This fight is not about diners enjoying unfettered access to delectable lobster rolls and Caesar salads. It's about a violation of trust, resentment, and betrayal behind the counter and the stove at a couple of restaurants in New York."

Not to me it isn't. What if Rebecca wins, this changes everything. What if there was only one place in NYC where you could experience a "seafood shack".
Not fair, not right, I demand unfettered access to lobster rolls!
Their squabbles are nothing to me. Violation of trust? Should he have just stayed there the rest of his life, working for her?

So why, can you tell me, why has this garnered three articles here when there is NO new information? Get on with it till there is actually something new to report!!!