Miscellaneous desk
< January 12	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 13[edit]

Adelheid. Wittgenstein and the Bishop[edit]

In Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" he asks whether Adelheid and the Bishop play a real game of chess. What is this a reference to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.201.120 (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goethe´s drama, Götz von Berlichingen (beginning of act II, I think). --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grosseto worth a detour - any Italian can tell me?[edit]

Hello, I am going to drive from Pisa to Rome and back. It seems the shortest is via Florence, but one can pass via Grosseto instead if a longer drive, I may do that on the return trip. The question is, it is worth stopping in Grosseto for a half day visit? I have never heard of it before and don't know if there is anything interesting to see there. The pictures on our Wikipedia article don't seem to highlight anything exceptional. Any other town where I should stop on my way? I already have planned stops in Lucca, Florence, and Siena. --Lgriot (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Florence for most of a year in the late 1980's and traveled to a lot of the area towns and cities twixt Florence and Pisa, and Florence and Rome (and Naples and further south to Sicily). I don't ever remember anyone mentioning "you should visit Grosseto," though, that being said I've never found an Italian village or town to NOT to be interesting in some way (yes, I'm an incorrigible Italophile). How long do you have for driving? The reason for asking is that your planned stops in Florence and Siena can be enjoyed for weeks (if not months and years); Lucca is a good half-day or day trip. Sacrificing even a half day for Grosseto when you could spend that same time on the infinite joys and sights of Florence and Siena might be a consideration. If you want any suggestions about Florence in particular (e.g., did you know you can see Galileo's severed index finger?) just ask! --Quartermaster (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I indeed have lmited time, so I will simply spend more of it in Florence, I guess. Thanks Quartermaster. I will leave this open in case anyone wants to suggest the Castelli Romani or whatever. --Lgriot (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

recipe for a mexican dinner[edit]

I wrote to you before. I will like to know if kristen will be able to get my recipe for a mexican dinner that i have made up. I've had many people ask me to open a restaurant because of the taste of the food. I would like to give her the recipe before i patent it. after i patent it, i won't be able to give it to her. i love the way this kids have brouth so much joy to me . I'm 70 years old and i too have my edward. my name is carmen mannix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.128.112 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you copyright a recipe rather then patent? Googlemeister (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can do both, actually. You automatically copyright your particular expression of it (the instructions and ingredients list), but you can indeed also patent recipes, for better or worse. Usually there's little reason to do this unless you are a big industrial food concern (patents are expensive). If this sounds weird in the context of small restaurants, consider it in the context of say, Coca-Cola, or Kraft. Proving originality is probably easier when your "food" is comprised of bizarre artificial chemicals, but there's no inherent reason you couldn't patent recipes that don't contain that. (The sealed crustless sandwich is a classic example, which illustrates both the principle, and the pitfalls of trying to truly come up with an "original" recipe with common ingredients.) In any case, if you did have a patent awarded to you (for a recipe or whatever else), you, the title holder, can elect to determine the terms of use with other people. So you could indeed let Kristen use the patent without any royalties or whatever. If Kristen was concerned about the legalities, she could have a lawyer draw up the terms of the agreement. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you mention Coca-Cola. They famously never patented their Coke-Cola formula because it would involve making it public. (Excepting certain military inventions, All patents are public documents. They can be searched online by anybody.) If Coke's formula had been patented back in the 1880s it would be long expired by now and anyone would be able to make Coca-Cola, but because they kept it a secret they've never been exactly duplicated. (Coke has the extra advantage of using an ingredient that's not legally available without a license that's only ever been issued to them, but that's besides the point.))

Even before a patent expires nothing would stop anyone from looking up the recipe on Google's patent search[1] and making it in their own kitchen, so long as they didn't try to sell it. APL (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, indeed, Coca-Cola may not be the best example! (Generally speaking, even military patents are open as well. Patent secrecy is usually declared while it is still an application, not a granted patent. There are a few instances of patents being withdrawn after being determined to be more dangerous than people realized at first, but they generally try to do that stuff before it becomes a true patent.) Trade secrets are more often used for things of that nature, which is a valid point, but doesn't detract from the possibility of patenting it. You patent things whose recipe is obvious from the product; you use trade secrets for things whose recipes cannot be reverse engineered. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean composed rather than compromised. —Tamfang (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aiming for "comprised", probably. --Sean 16:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we are being pedantic, then "includes" might be better, since one hopes that there are more wholesome ingredients included, but perhaps the intention was a portmanteau of this and "is compromised by"? Dbfirs 17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all, for dissecting my typos! --Mr.98 (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to assume that it's an error on top of another error – but now that's been confirmed .... —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]