To be honest, if you spent less type typing replies and more:

a) reading the post you're replying to and
b) actually watching the programme,

you might reduce your chances of having an early heart attack later in life.

All the other tasks this series (fish/laundry/photos/pub) were one offs for the day. With the Ice Cream task Sir Alan actually explained at the start that they were making new ice cream and gaining new business on behalf of the farms, for the farms to run in future.

In terms of the programme, no one will be sued, as everyone involved will have signed disclaimers absolving the production company/farm of responsibility. However in real life the team would have potentially been in breach of the 1982 Sale of Goods Act.

In 'real life' the farm would have been up shit creek, and that's a fair enough reason not to want to employ such a person: not knowing business basics.

Sir alan doesn't need to make up rules to justify himself to the likes of us; he's worth £830m, and can do what he wants. If he doesn't like someone, he can simply fire them for that. Just as good television. "I don't like you; I wouldn't trust you with my business; you're fired."

Some things in television are genuinely faked (e.g. Vanessa) whilst other are simply part of the television making process. The Apprentice almost certainly falls into the latter category.

Chin chin

P.S. try and keep any replies down to a minimum, as I don't want to miss the start of the programme. Tomorrow.

I'm sorry but in the real world, if you own 'an idea' and are smart enough to trademark it, it and any resulting product are yours! Every court in the land knows that.

I think the consensus is that we don't know what we can and can't interpret as 'real' on this show although it would be nice if there were no sudden (and nasty) surprises.

I'm afraid that isn't true: you can't copyright an idea; patents have to have a technical effect, and a trademark is simply a name. If you wrote down the recipe for the ice cream you could copyright that, but that would simply stop people reprinting the recipe, not from making it for themselves.

That's why, say, McDonalds aren't the only people in the world making burgers. They cam TM the name 'Big Mac', but can't stop people making them. Hence the fact you can buy a 'cheeseburger' from multiple places.

So, after all that, we can conclude that some of the footage is staged and some is not?

Well, copyright infringement is also illegal if proved.

As for trademarks, some flavours which sit under larger brands are trademarked separately, e.g. Chubby Hubby™ which sits under the Ben & Jerry's™ ice-cream brand. I take your point that it's only the name, but it's essentially a flavour/recipe which is heavily protected, as is the case with Coca Cola.

Therefore, had the Apprentices given their ice-creams special names (which they did) not only could they place a tm on the name but also a copyright on the recipe.

'Ideas' are sometimes more tangible than you think.

All the farm would need to do would be to change the name of the flavour.

I do agree with a couple of your contentions above

1) That Sugar does often make a decision who will go and then find some reason to justify it, either through exaggerating the importance of some error or finding one.
2) I think he did try and justify getting rid of Karen in an earlier series for a manufactured reason, she was a stunning candidate

Like Ciderlicious instead of scrumpalicious

An improvement.

You may be able to copyright a recipe in the sense that someone would not be able to publish it and claim it is theirs, but I don't believe there is anything stopping someone using any recipe to produce a product.

You can copyright the name not the product if food/drink ... for example Ribena but you can get other blackcurrent drinks

You can trademark the name, not copyright ! And you seem to be repeating my earlier point in the latter part of the sentence, my point was that one could produce a product based on any recipe.

I am so sorry for existing ...

Nothing except the law.

Companies don't spend all that time/money on trademarks and copyright protection for fun. They'll do everything they can to protect their investment - including using industry spies - and if anyone infringes and takes 'copy-cat' products to market, they risk litigation. Which is why no-one else has produced a product that tastes exactly the same as Coke.

and which law would that be?

Providing one doesn't infringe trademarks and patents I don't see how Coke could prosecute someone else producing a product with an identical recipe.

Companies protect their investment by keeping technology secret and applying for patents. It is BECAUSE it is possible for anyone to use non-patented technology that companies make such an effort to keep technology secret that is not patented or cannot be patented.

If a company made a clone of a Rolls Royce the infringement of the relevant trademarks ( or the intention to confuse customers over the origin of the car ) that would be the problem, not the fact they copied the non-patentable technology or design.

Cloning literature and images is covered by copyright.

I wasn't talking about an 'identical' recipe - I was talking about Coke's recipe. A different matter.

If a company obtained Coke's recipe and used it to produce a drink they could not be sued for the use of the recipe. How many different ways am I going to have to say this for you to understand?

What would be problematic would be copying the design of the container of the drink.

Hypothetically:-

...Coke would investigate and end up bringing a charge against one of their (former?) employees for violating an employee confidentiality agreement. Provided that went in their favour, Coke may have enough evidence to pursue the rival company and force them to list the ingredients for their product...in a court of law.

(And there's no need to get lairy. I'll end my 'discussion' with you here, thank you).

If someone were to violate a confidentiality agreement the company in receipt of the information is not in any way liable for the violation, so they would not be involved.

Take no notice, you are not the only one to be got at by them today. Sad some people haven't a sense of humour or know how to be polite to others, maybe they have been watching the Apprentice too much and think rude behaviour is the norm

I meant recipe, not ingredients.

Believe me, I'm not.:sleep:

So what your saying, is that Coke or whoever would have to prove not that they recipe is the same, but that it was stolen.....which is theft, not copyright infringement. I think you would need to have a good bleeding case to prove intellectual rights to an idea, which is what you started out saying could be trademarked and copywritten.

If we take your Big Mac example, I could technically make a two pattie burger with mayo, onions, pickles and salad call it the Dragon Burger and there is bugger all McD could do about it. This is a fact, because BK have their own version called the Whopper. Unless you know differently, I think there is no current litigation between McD and BK over this breach of copyright or theft of intellectual property.

So the farm own the rights to the ice cream, but suppose your right on the name - which candidate gets copyright to that name? The problem is that it is unclear who owns the rights to this name and also where your argument falls down badly. To have copyright, someone needs to own it in the first place.

To me there is only one that owns the rights to produce this ice cream, that is the farm itself, though I am sure you would disagree and say the one that wins the Apprentice would get it, even if they were not in that team that created it. Or maybe SAS that gets the rights, seeing as he was the one that set it up in the first place. Or do the farm ditch the flavour altogether, create one similar (not the same) and then sell it under a different name; which is perfectly legal. This would certainly solve all the pedantic problems over copyright to something they already own.

Personally, I wouldn't touch anything made from that. You could have come up with a more appetising name for your burger.

No-one said any proof or prosecution would be easy; just that it would be possible.

No it wouldn't, unless you wish to count a frivolous prosecution which would be thrown out instantly.

Well it would be unique, you see we use dragon flame to cook the burgers. Just one problem at the moment, there is only one flavour of burger - Cremated