When
I
first
wrote
about
a
podcast
appearance
by
famous
chef
Dave
Chang,
our
president
was
still
Barack
Obama.
In
that
column,
I
highlighted
the
benefit
of
teasing
out
lessons
for
success
in
legal
practice
from
high
performers
in
other
industries,
“especially
when
they
share
lessons
they
learned
on
their
path
to
success.”
That
is
doubly
true
when
they
achieve
their
success
in
a
service
industry
which
shares
similarities
to
the
service
profession
that
is
legal
practice.
When
I
wrote
that
column,
even
though
Chef
Chang
was
very
well
known
for
his
expanding
empire
of
Momofuku
restaurants,
he
was
nowhere
near
as
famous
as
he
is
now.
Since
then,
Chang
has
become
a
multimedia
star
in
his
own
right,
with
multiple
podcasts
on
the
Ringer
podcast
network,
as
well
as
numerous
TV
projects,
including
Netflix’s
“Ugly
Delicious.”
While
I
am
only
an
occasional
listener
to
his
Ringer
podcasts,
I
make
sure
to
listen
when
Chang
does
interviews
of
accomplished
guests
from
various
disciplines.
I
would
commend
two
interviews
in
particular.
The
first
is
a
March
2022
discussion
with
comedian
and
producer
Nick
Kroll,
which
mixes
both
humor
and
pathos
in
its
discussions
around
work,
fatherhood,
and
the
challenges
in
maintaining
friendships
while
juggling
newfound
responsibilities.
The
second
is
an
interview
with
famed
executive
guru
Marshall
Goldsmith,
focused
on
the
challenges
of
mixing
career
achievement
with
personal
goals
in
the
elusive
search
for
personal
contentment
and
even
happiness.
In
each
interview,
the
guests
bring
real
wisdom
borne
out
of
deep
introspection
to
the
conversation,
playing
off
Chang’s
unrelenting
willingness
to
expose
his
character
challenges
without
apology
—
but
also
coupled
to
a
sincere
desire
for
self-improvement.
Listening
to
either,
or
both,
would
be
time
well
spent.
In
the
latest
Chang
podcast
episode
that
caught
my
ear,
he
and
his
guests
were
doing
a
“Debate
Club”
segment.
The
topic?
“Culinary
Intellectual
Property
and
Giving
Credit
Where
It’s
Due.”
It
is
important,
however,
to
preface
discussion
of
the
episode
with
some
background
on
Chang
and
IP
issues.
For
one,
he
has
long
been
known
for
boldness
in
terms
of
calling
out
others
for
alleged
IP
infractions,
as
with
his
2012
claims
that
another
chain
was
“running
his
concept.”
He
is
also
a
prolific
trademark
filer
and
owner,
with
over
15
marks
to
his
name,
centering
on
his
various
restaurants
and
other
enterprises.
Yet,
his
status
as
an
IP
owner
has
not
cooled
his
frustration
at
what
he
calls
the
“rampant
theft”
in
the
food
industry,
which
he
compares
to
the
struggles
that
fashion
houses
have
in
dealing
with
“fast
fashion”
competitors
like
Zara
and
others.
In
response
to
the
copying
he
claims
is
endemic
in
the
food
industry,
Chang
proposes
a
licensing
model
for
recipes,
similar
to
what
is
found
in
the
music
industry.
At
the
same
time,
he
acknowledges
that
certain
well-known
foods
are
no
longer
eligible
for
IP
protection,
such
as
the
chocolate
chip
cookie,
which
Chang
uses
as
an
example.
Despite
the
acknowledgment
of
the
public
domain,
however,
Chang
still
proposes
that
if
he
comes
up
with
a
“new”
chocolate
chip
cookie,
or
if
he
came
up
with
the
“pliable
ganache”
that
pastry
chef
Alex
Stupak
is
credited
with
originating,
then
he
“should
be
getting
some
royalties
for
that.”
Putting
aside
the
imprecise
references
to
things
that
may
be
patentable
concepts,
versus
trademarks
or
copyrights,
it
is
interesting
that
Chang
does
not
reference
Mrs.
Field’s
Cookies
when
talking
about
IP
around
chocolate
chip
cookies,
as
Mrs.
Field’s
recipe
is
a
well-known
example
of
a
food-based
trade
secret,
similar
to
the
formula
for
Coca-Cola.
Nor
is
Chang’s
call
for
greater
IP
protection
in
the
food
industry
met
without
counterpoint
by
his
guests.
In
an
initial
rejoinder,
one
of
his
guests
points
to
the
challenge
of
reducing
accessibility
and
follow-on
innovation
when
recipes
are
subject
to
IP
protection,
even
setting
aside
the
traditional
ethos
around
sharing
recipes
that
has
long
been
present
in
human
cultures
around
the
world.
Later
on
in
the
discussion,
an
even
more
potent
challenge
is
raised
to
Chang’s
proposals,
namely
the
lack
of
a
viable
enforcement
mechanism
in
the
food
industry
for
policing
IP,
including
the
low
monetary
stakes
that
would
make
the
cost
of
enforcement
prohibitive
relative
to
the
benefit
—
for
all
but
the
biggest
companies,
at
least.
In
fact,
Chang
points
out
how
megabrands
like
Twinkies
and
Coca-Cola
are
able
to
trademark
their
names
and
protect
their
recipes,
while
also
retaining
the
ability
to
copy
the
innovations
of
others
at
scale.
While
those
pathways
may
be
open
to
the
big
players,
Chang
also
laments
the
popular
notion
that
food
should
be
cheap,
which
in
his
view
serves
as
a
potent
roadblock
to
innovators
getting
proper
credit
for
their
contributions
in
the
food
industry.
Ultimately,
while
the
debate
ends
up
rambling
a
bit
—
and
the
precision
of
IP
nomenclature
in
use
is
lacking
—
it
is
always
interesting
to
listen
to
accomplished
business
people
debate
the
proper
balance
of
IP
protection
in
their
industry.
As
someone
with
a
history
of
innovation
in
a
sometimes
staid
industry,
it
is
not
a
surprise
that
Chang
leans
toward
a
position
of
rewarding
IP
owners.
Chang’s
frustration
at
the
lack
of
respect
for
IP
in
the
food
industry
is
palpable,
especially
when
he
sees
innovators
in
other
industries
rewarded
through
workable
mechanisms
for
balancing
access
to
IP
protected
material
and
the
need
to
foster
additional
innovation.
Still,
he
recognizes
the
presence
of
a
public
domain,
as
well
as
the
powerful
sociological
forces
that
surround
food
culture
and
cut
against
robust
IP
protection
in
the
industry.
At
a
minimum,
the
discussion
is
both
interesting
for
its
content,
as
well
as
a
potent
reminder
that
we
all
benefit
as
a
society
from
increased
IP
literacy.
The
more
robust
debates
we
can
have
around
IP
issues
the
better,
but
we
must
also
recognize
that
the
more
informed
the
debaters
are
on
proper
IP
terminology
and
scope,
the
higher
the
quality
of
the
discourse.
It
is
always
a
treat
to
hear
IP
discussed
by
nonprofessionals.
But
the
treat
is
also
sweeter
when
the
proper
IP
literacy
ingredients
are
present.
The
jury
has
spoken,
but
it
is
a
near
certainty
that
they
won’t
have
the
last
word.
Please
feel
free
to
send
comments
or
questions
to
me
at
gkroub@kskiplaw.com
or
via
Twitter:
@gkroub.
Any
topic
suggestions
or
thoughts
are
most
welcome.
Gaston
Kroub
lives
in
Brooklyn
and
is
a
founding
partner
of
Kroub,
Silbersher
&
Kolmykov
PLLC,
an
intellectual
property
litigation
boutique,
and Markman
Advisors
LLC,
a
leading
consultancy
on
patent
issues
for
the
investment
community.
Gaston’s
practice
focuses
on
intellectual
property
litigation
and
related
counseling,
with
a
strong
focus
on
patent
matters.
You
can
reach
him
at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or
follow
him
on
Twitter: @gkroub.