Should breweries expect to be original or is cloning inevitable?

Wouldn't that be what "brewing to style" means?

 

I have to say that I can't remember ever having a commercial clone of another beer. I think most breweries go out of there way to be unique and the worst critique for them would be that their beer tastes exactly like a well known beer from another brewery.

 

what about restaurants? there is only room for one burger place?

 

Sierra Nevada can't even make it taste exactly (100%) the same every time, how would another brewery come so close for this to ever be a problem?

 

Doesn't matter if the Sierra Nevada Pale Ale defines the style then hitting it on the money is a compliment not a rip off.

 

Hundreds of Brewers chased the Elder and the Younger for years before figuring it out...

 

I'm sure it happens, but unless that brewery has exactly the same equipment, exactly the same suppliers, exactly the same process etc then it won't come out the same, even if it is close. There are too many variables imo.

Plus most brewers want to put their own mark on things too, so it will only be a very few breweries that want to exactly copy something

 

Well, what about when a brewer goes from one brewery to another? Do they use the flasher thingy from Men in Black to erase the recipes from the brewers head? And, what if that brewer was the one to develop the recipe for the original brewery? Should he be allowed to keep it?

There have been several instances here in the NW where this has happened. And, honestly, there's a lot of beer that's all remarkably similar, even with no cross-breeding. There's reasons why Boeing and Airbus jetliners are so similar in appearance; different groups of smart people, working on the same problems, come to similar conclusions. With over 4,000 breweries in the U.S.A. alone, stuff is gonna be like stuff.

 

Pretty much, but a lot of time with head brewers there are non-compete agreements signed, or some such thing. I don't know just how far they 'stretch' though- have there been any cases where it was used on a recipe that's different-but-similar before? Because it's very easy to make a technical change to a recipe that doesn't really make much of a difference.

 

I actually love it when that happens! Just the other day, I had an awesome Zombie Powder!!!

 

So, what about when a cellarman/assistant brewer gets the chance to become head brewer somewhere else? Most of the American craft beer industry seems pretty cool with letting people move on, to another opportunity where they can advance. Especially at the level of most of the breweries we deal with, I doubt anyone, other than maybe the head brewer, has a non-compete (or some sort of agreement to not use recipes).

 

Oh, they would be hired expressly for their experience; so I'm sure that's why there are so many essentially similar beers. But this goes back to @Hanglow 's post above about not being able to really 'clone' a beer anyway. I just always wondered if those non-competes even did anything anyway.

 

If we all agree brewing is an art form, isn't this kind of like saying Led Zeppelin sounds like The Yardbirds because Jimmy Page played guitar in both bands? You can't put a non compete agreement on an artist. I'm not sure how much sense that analogy makes, but I think there's a point in there somewhere. Cheers!

 

IPAs as we know them today would have never left California if no one every tried to copy and/or improve upon what someone else did. Oftentimes it's someone inspired by a beer they had on vacation but can't have at home, trying to provide it to the rest of their friends, family and customers--not to mention wanting to be able drink it on the regular themselves. Sometimes those people blow up with a similar recipe, other times they make a new riff on it and start a whole new trend.

Then there's the fact that a lot of these breweries are straight up giving out their recipes for nothing these days, which I really don't get. Sure it may be intended for home brewers and generates a lot of good will, but that really doesn't mean anything in the long run and just guarantees other upstart brewers will use it, if not larger ones.

 

I respectfully think you're not thinking the analogy fully through. Page is no stranger to lawsuits concerning plagiarism (but I realize you're spinning it differently). That and not everyone here agrees that brewing is an art form (I don't). If it was, would beer be covered as intellectual property?

I'm out of my knowledge base here, but I would imagine that patenting a recipe would be difficult if even possible... that "trade secrets" would be more the norm (plus trademarking names). Of course the previous is concerning legality rather than ethics. I'd be shocked if breweries don't occasionally try to reverse engineer the competition. I wonder if people here would consider that ethical.

Edit: Anyone with knowledge here should feel free to correct me.

 

It's damn near perfect for the style and any brewer that can do that should be proud. And on the other side, if a brewery managed a near perfect imitation of Heddy Topper and distributed to your area, would you be complaining then? I don't think so.

 

Would Kimmich?

 

If more brewers put out top tier brews comparable to the classics or the regional hyped beers, then those said ripoffs should be proud because theyve made something desirable. I doubt big name brewers beside the recent DIY Dog i.e. or another the alchemist would share a recipe for say heady. If you have the brains to clone a recipe just based on knowledge or your senses while drinking it, then who can stop you.