Coca-Cola Pulls Dr. Evil Stunt

This is the corporate equivalent of pulling a Tom Sawyer -- "Here, do something for me and I'll let you whitewash my fence".

Coca-Cola is hoping a small army of more or less independent researchers will come up with a patent that would make them untold billions. Then, they will pay someone the astonishing, amazing, outrageously large sum of....

$$$$ ONE MILLION DOLLARS $$$$

I bet Coca-Cola feels like they're getting away with something...

i.imgur.com...

No different from working everyday for any large company they pay very little for what a single person makes for the company and reap all the benefits.

a reply to: Namdru

Thats not bad. If you worked for Coke , you would net a whole dollar . Yes $1 . Any company
Peace.

a reply to: Namdru

Our system is based off paying you less than what your productivity creates. It is the way profits are made. It is the way millions-billions are made.

If we we to remove the profit motive would we still have innovation?


.

a reply to: Namdru
Not to say they aren't, but that page doesn't say Coke gets the patent.

Well if I found the answer I'd sell it to everyone BUT Coca Cola .


And Frosties 👍

a reply to: Namdru

One problem that I see with finding a replacement for sugar is that it isn't just taste that is involved.
Our bodies react to sugar after it is consumed.
The sugar replacements do not give that rush that sugar does.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Namdru
Not to say they aren't, but that page doesn't say Coke gets the patent.

True. But I bet they'd be happy to take my formula, no questions asked, in exchange for one million dollars.

I think they're trying to do something similar to what Apple did with its Darwin OS. They allowed all the source code to the public with a BSD license for a while, you could download their install CD and even boot to a command-line with it on a Thinkpad -- done it myself. Then they close the source and reap the benefits of all the open-source development community's input through successive generations of Darwin, etc..

So Coke is maybe doing the same, but it seems more a Steve Jobs maneuver than Dr. Evil or Tom Sawyer. I just wanted to point out their ploy, it makes sense. Why not try to profit on other people's free labor? Worst case scenario: nobody claims the million dollars, and Coke doesn't get a cheap patent. Medium-case, they get an expensive patent. Best case, they get a material sample from somebody trying to bargain with them. They stall the bargain, reverse- engineer the sample, patent a production process for it, and voila. All-but-free, billions-dollar worthy patent, for the production process and perhaps the original formula. In any case, if they patent an extremely efficient means of producing the substitute itself, they still have enormous clout even if they don't own the patent for the formula , because any move to capitalize the production of it would likely want to make them a partner.

It's logical. Coke pushes more refined sugar into humanity than just about any other company, I'm thinking.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Namdru

Our system is based off paying you less than what your productivity creates. It is the way profits are made. It is the way millions-billions are made.

If we we to remove the profit motive would we still have innovation?


.

Yes, everybody likes to eat. Some want better fare than others. That's how we got fire in the first place.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Namdru

One problem that I see with finding a replacement for sugar is that it isn't just taste that is involved.
Our bodies react to sugar after it is consumed.
The sugar replacements do not give that rush that sugar does.

Coke Zero covers most of the bases in its taste. It only lacks the thickened consistency, the "mouth feel," that real sugar provides, ...like in a Pepsi.

originally posted by: Aliensun

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Namdru

Our system is based off paying you less than what your productivity creates. It is the way profits are made. It is the way millions-billions are made.

If we we to remove the profit motive would we still have innovation?


.

Yes, everybody likes to eat. Some want better fare than others. That's how we got fire in the first place.

Star from me Aliensun, Love your words, really sum up on how I feel on Capitalism in its current form, shh some of my friends call me a communist, I just detest global corporations who spend millions figuring out ways to not pay either their taxes, or a decent living wage which then the government have to top up, EXCUSE ME, how much £$profit$£ did these companies make last year.

Staff at Mcdonalds in the UK, were on strike today, 1st time ever, with some wages reported as low as £7 (thats seven pounds, real money) these stores were based in London, where house prices are beyond most normal peoples reach.

My solution would be to tether the lowest paid worker at a company to the highest, and that ratio must remain, so year on year everybody benefits not just the TOP Cu̶n̶ ats

Work hard for the man at the top, the gap will only ever increase, your children and their children will see an even bigger gap, it maybe that big that the 1% move of this rock and just the workers are left here, like Total Recall in reverse

a reply to: Namdru

Seems like a normal business quest to me...and in tune with the whole "crowd sourcing" meme; with one caveat...
The company that holds the patent to a sugar like sweetner, will for a number of years, have the ability to make hundreds of Billions of dollars.

So for a business...that's a great investment. Spend less one thousandth of a percent on your key to corporate stability and growth. Then of course they will pay for the R&D to get FDA approval...and within about 5 or 6 years we would see it on our supermarket shelves.

serious question for liberals:
When yalls parents and grandparents retire, from where do you think their income comes?
Investments!!

Who the hell do you think is the primary beneficiary of those billions of profits??

Jesus liberals are obtuse

-Chris

There not looking for a patentable item they are looking for a natral compound like stevia

Its a hard quest our toung is literaly made to ditect high energy items like shugar thats why no sweetener thats not high energy works we just simply know it lacks the callories

A million bucks to find the next natral sweetener dosent sound bad to me ... sounds more like a oppertunity to thows who love nature and eat wild foods ... some bushcraft persion out there aredy has the anser i bet

originally posted by: markovian
There not looking for a patentable item they are looking for a natral compound like stevia

Its a hard quest our toung is literaly made to ditect high energy items like shugar thats why no sweetener thats not high energy works we just simply know it lacks the callories

Even if they can't patent it they'll still be first to market with it --- and with de facto market dominance using the new substitute. There will never be a precise substitute for sugar, though. The aftertaste of sugar is almost unique -- being just a little sour -- and it stimulates desire for more sugar. Also the increase in blood sugar, can't beat that, except maybe the Nutrasweet does -- gives you a one-two whammy of methanol and phenylalanine when it breaks down. But Nutrasweet tastes like hell, has a terrible bittersweet cloying aftertaste.