Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

Tom415 - Well, since you asked. Actually, when I was in school, they most certainly did not discourage copying or stealing from others - in fact - we sat at round shared tables - and were encouraged to work together to do our work and to share our answers with those who had no answers. In fact, we were often graded as a group for all of our projects. The only work we did alone were the standardized tests - where they proved that classes like ours - that encouraged team work - had higher individual test scores (even among the students with disabilities) - they deducted: the shared group thinking encouraged individual growth and perspective. Plus, it was just way more fun then being tied to a desk with "eyes on our own papers". All of our hippie teachers raised little captialist rebels with big ideas. Go figure.

This is not software code or image rights - and yet, I think you could look at plenty of examples where the cream of the crop in the software design industry also believe in open code..... shall we say, "Open Software Foundation" ? Linux?

Oh, back to the food biz ...... yeah, the new math.......did I mention risk? Another thing chef/owners understand - the risk associated with opening up a biz and putting their food ideas out there......and possibly improving them......and changing them as their customers and staff change.....and perhaps the risk of having their concepts used by others.

So, yeah, you can't convince me this is about theft or stealing. I do not believe that is so. I agree with FFM : this is business - it is all about me, the customer, and the marketplace. When my burger starts coming with a 5 minute message on copyright law......then I'm moving to China.

Let me guess, are you still driving a black Ford?

I don't think a non-compete clause would necessarily benefit the chefs or the public or the industry. Competition is good for everyone, especially if it is right next door. And chef owners understand this very well. Sometimes they open their own new shops which compete at some level with their existing biz. We all enjoy the benefits of competition - and chefs are some of the most competitive people I know. They aren't complaining - they love it. It's conquest, it's I can do better, I can innovate, I can stay on top. Plus, it's all buzz to them.......which is even better for everyone. Every time a new shack opens - it's more buzz back to the original. Some people just pick up the second or third shop as an extra to rotate.

It would be a very sad day if new owners had to explain to lawyers where their concepts came from to open up. The list of intangibles would never be closed......it would be impossible to open up anything......similarities of any kind would surely be suspect and cause conflict.........imagine the appeals?

Show me a chef/owner who doesn't want the challenge in their own backyard? You will not find one, they do not exist. That person is called an employee. ( or a critic)

Did someone mention salt-water taffy? I love it. And when I go to York, ME I want my taffy and then I want it again in Ogunquit and then I want it again in Wells, and then I want it again in Kennebunk.

It is amazing how many people are commenting about this when A) they have not seen the complaint and B) they have no idea what the issues are. Inane gossip, speculation, and erroneous conclusions just muddy the waters. The complaint is online and Rebecca Charles is suing for trade dress, identity theft and breach of fiduciary responsibility.

She doesn't claim to have invented anything but HER OWN restaurant, which she is trying to protect.

She doesn't want to stop you from getting your cheaper, closer lobster roll, nor does she lay claim to inventing them, just HER OWN. (Pearl's roll is a completely different animal than the traditional New England shack roll, which is why it's the one everyone copies.)

She couldn't get more customers in the joint and if she were trying to make money, she would have opened several, which brings me to the next point.

It seems McFarland is partnered with businessmen (one a millionaire/political wannabee, according to google) who intend to open of these.

In NYC on biz this week I went to both places for lunch and dinner and ELB looks exactly like Pearl. This is not Ed Levine's bias, it's reality. The paint colors down to the green in the bathroom, gray wainscoting and the white painted brick wall are identical; as are the marble bar and side bar; the beer tap; bathroom furniture; pendant lights; window seat; chairs; floor stain; odd long cabinets behind the bar; glassware, plates, coffee mugs, and doilies; waiter's station; large mirror like Pearl's placed in the same way behind the bar; and the actual layout of the dining room. The placement of the pictures, "sconces," chalkboards, what is written on them and how, menu and wine list are all identical.

Almost every item on Ed's menu is something I have eaten at Pearl in the past or can get today and this includes the lunch menu which no one is mentioning. The presentation of the dishes is identical; the sides are the same, the tartar sauce, the mignonette, etc. The mussel dish and the bouillabaisse (not clam shack dishes) were exactly the same as was Pearl's pot pie. He even makes her blueberry crumble pie. The quality paled but the intent was clear.

I lived in SF for more than a decade, went to Swan all of the time and the restaurants are nothing alike. And anyone familiar with clam shacks knows that Pearl Oyster Bar is much more than that. Tie up all these ends at Ed's and you have AN ILLEGAL FRANCHISE. Right, which I understand is a bit of an esoteric, obsolete concept these days, and the law are on Rebcca's side.

Nobu Nextdoor

Tom415: Facts wrong, again. Bobby Flay was Executive Chef, Neil was Chef de Cuisine, Mary was Sous Chef. The lawsuit never went to trial before a judge. It went into mediation. Enough said.

Tom415: let's clear up some "facts." Before opening Pearl WITH Rebecca, Mary was the Sous Chef at Bolo for Bobby Flay (you've heard of him, right?). As for the menu coming from Rebecca's love for Maine - it was actually the restaurant concept - not the entire menu. Some of the recipes on the menu were and are Mary's and Mary's alone, some were collaborations and some were Rebecca's - they were Co-Chef/Owners. As for the "chatty waitresses" at MFC, they have their facts wrong too. There was no law suit, and Rebecca won nothing. There were shareholder disagreements - as many corporations have. Rebecca bought out Mary's shares. Mary moved on - taking her recipes with her. MFC has a Florida fish camp vibe - nothing like Maine or New England - and has it's own, original menu.

Tom415 - correction: "It is about TWO chefs who 10 years ago created and entire business entity that was unique to this city and, in fact, the country."