The Bar Towel

According to the Citizen (via Beauchesne) if the Charity appeals the decision, we'll find out who did it:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Beau+ ... story.html

I'd offer up a buck or two to support that legal fight!

It's so strange. For the life of me I can't figure out why the big three would bother, unless the whole mess over Beau's ceramic bottles really pissed them off. Yeah, it would be nice to think they were "scared", but that just strikes me as silly.

rejtable wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote: I suppose it is possible that it is another small brewer, either one of the local breweries/brewpubs or the owners of the brewpub that is going to be opening in January. But I read the St. John Wort blog entry about this and he had a very good point. Fans of Beau's are probably also fans of those breweries, and when the name of the complainer comes out, if it was a small brewer it could be a huge PR mess that could really turn of a significant portion of their fanbase (a fan base which probably wouldn't be that big to begin with). I suppose this could be possible, but it would be super dumb. If it is a larger brewer, they probably figure there wouldn't be a lot of cross-over between devoted Beau's drinkers, who would be pissed off, and the people who drink their product. So even then while it would be a PR mess (you're taking away jobs from homeless people) it probably wouldn't be as big of a hit in terms of money lost.

.

Oh, I totally agree that the risk is FAR greater for any of the locals. It could be nuclear for them if this spun big enough.

But that doesn't mean someone from a local wasn't shortsighted or dumb enough not to do it.

I'm just saying I'm willing to hold onto my pitchfork and torch until I hear more.

But I had my pitchfork all sharpened up and ready to go...

Cale wrote:The "other brewery" is likely one of the big three - but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it was Kichesippi. As it is already they won't be getting any of my money until I see some Scotch Irish brands back in existence, or some sort of evidence that they didn't just buy out the Heritage and SI brands and recipes only to do jack shit with them.

Kichesippi tweeted that they had nothing to do with it.

Bytowner wrote:It's so strange. For the life of me I can't figure out why the big three would bother, unless the whole mess over Beau's ceramic bottles really pissed them off. Yeah, it would be nice to think they were "scared", but that just strikes me as silly.

Again, we are speculating obviously, but I can see them more worried about this in a long-term big picture way. Not directly worried too much about Beau's, but if every brewery in the province started doing this, there could be significant impacts on their Beer Store.

A bit like those stories you sometimes hear about the Rolling Stones sending nasty legal letters to some little kid's lemonade stand who is using the tongue logo or whatever. The point isn't to shut down the kid, but to make sure that the use is nipped in the bud before everyone starts using the logo. I realize that trademark law is different than this, just saying that I can see how they'd be more worried about the big picture rather than just this one specific instance.

Glad to hear that it wasn't Kitchisspspspsoisisi. I'm really hoping that I don't have to end up hating one of the local/little guys. Be great if everyone publicly stated their position on this.

JerCraigs wrote: But I had my pitchfork all sharpened up and ready to go...

When we find out who did this, we can go Occupy their parking lot.

rejtable wrote:

JerCraigs wrote: But I had my pitchfork all sharpened up and ready to go...

When we find out who did this, we can go Occupy their parking lot.

Here, here. Who's bringing the beer? Can we have Beau's deliver some to the parking lot?

rejtable wrote:

Bytowner wrote:It's so strange. For the life of me I can't figure out why the big three would bother, unless the whole mess over Beau's ceramic bottles really pissed them off. Yeah, it would be nice to think they were "scared", but that just strikes me as silly.

Again, we are speculating obviously, but I can see them more worried about this in a long-term big picture way. Not directly worried too much about Beau's, but if every brewery in the province started doing this, there could be significant impacts on their Beer Store.

You're close. Here's the thing. If a delivery service is allowed to sell directly from breweries, what indicates that they have to sell from only one brewery? It's about three logical steps from an outside delivery service delivering one brewery's beer to an outside delivery service operating a depot and selling craft beer from all breweries in a region on a delivery basis. It would be like having an alternative to The Beer Store, but without ever having to get up off your ass.

From the regional model, why can't they do it for the province?

It's pretty obvious why The Beer Store can't allow that to happen, which is why the complainant p. much has to be one of the big three.

The charity thing, incidentally, is a red herring in terms of legality. It is a genius move in terms of community advocacy and support, while being a PR nightmare for the big guys. Sort of a "Train must go through even if there's a damsel tied to the tracks" move.

edit: here's the blog post btw, if anyone is interested http://saintjohnswort.ca/2011/11/25/the ... e-of-2011/

rejtable wrote:

Bytowner wrote:It's so strange. For the life of me I can't figure out why the big three would bother, unless the whole mess over Beau's ceramic bottles really pissed them off. Yeah, it would be nice to think they were "scared", but that just strikes me as silly.

Again, we are speculating obviously, but I can see them more worried about this in a long-term big picture way. Not directly worried too much about Beau's, but if every brewery in the province started doing this, there could be significant impacts on their Beer Store.

A bit like those stories you sometimes hear about the Rolling Stones sending nasty legal letters to some little kid's lemonade stand who is using the tongue logo or whatever. The point isn't to shut down the kid, but to make sure that the use is nipped in the bud before everyone starts using the logo. I realize that trademark law is different than this, just saying that I can see how they'd be more worried about the big picture rather than just this one specific instance.

Glad to hear that it wasn't Kitchisspspspsoisisi. I'm really hoping that I don't have to end up hating one of the local/little guys. Be great if everyone publicly stated their position on this.

Yea I can definetly see the beer store owners wanting to stop this as a preventative strike kind of thing. I mean for now sure they are not going to be losing much money off of this, especially with the $15 delivery charge. But if more breweries start this up I imagine the price would drop. Plus with how connected to the internet everyone is becoming a delivery company representating a brewery could essentially become a rolling retail store. And if it is an outside company doing the work, you could, in places like Toronto or Ottawa, have a rolling retail store that represents all different kinds of breweries.

A rolling OCB store in Ottawa or Toronto full of the seasonal and non-LCBO releases from a bunch of the different OCB breweries where someone could check online and order beers from their work computer or phone and pick up either at their office, or something would be awesome, and could easily be a logical evolution of this. That would be something that would scare the Beer Store owners. Instead of having a food truck parked on a public street you have a delivery truck, stocked with popular items and people making "pick-ups" after ordering online.

saints_gambit wrote:You're close. Here's the thing. If a delivery service is allowed to sell directly from breweries, what indicates that they have to sell from only one brewery? It's about three logical steps from an outside delivery service delivering one brewery's beer to an outside delivery service operating a depot and selling craft beer from all breweries in a region on a delivery basis. It would be like having an alternative to The Beer Store, but without ever having to get up off your ass.

From the regional model, why can't they do it for the province?

It's pretty obvious why The Beer Store can't allow that to happen, which is why the complainant p. much has to be one of the big three.

The charity thing, incidentally, is a red herring in terms of legality. It is a genius move in terms of community advocacy and support, while being a PR nightmare for the big guys. Sort of a "Train must go through even if there's a damsel tied to the tracks" move.

/

Oh, for sure I was thinking of that kind of long term thing.

And yeah, the charity thing was a brilliant move by Beau's on all counts. It lined up with what appears to be in their core values to begin with, and it serves as a huge PR weapon in this current fight. Had this fuss been about them having to stop their own in-house operations, the impact on a personal level would be way less severe. We the beer nerds would be upset, but the charity thing has a much wider resonance.

Ottawa Centre MPP Yasir Naqvi says he's "looking into" alleged discrimination against microbreweries by the provine's beer police.

citizenduffy Andrew Duffy
Adam Moffat, of Molson Coors Canada, says "for the record Molson did not lodge the complaint." Labatt? Did you Blue the whistle on Beau's?

citizenduffy Andrew Duffy
Contacted Sleeman Brewery - it's owned by Sapporo - to see if they capped #Beau's home delivery. Official said no one there: "It's Friday."

Just sent my own email off to Naqvi, they replied pretty quickly promising a reply. Minority and suddenly they're answering emails.

icemachine wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:The thing I don't get is the logic behind this regulation, who is it designed to protect? I mean a private for-profit company can deliver me beer, and a brewer can deliver me beer (if I order a Keg from Beau's I can still get it), but a brewery can not contract a private company (even a non-profit one) to deliver that beer to me for them.

I would guess when these dial-a-bottle companies were started the LLBO (predecessor to AGCO) wanted to make it clear that they could not deliver booze from out of province or product from a Brew/Vint-on-premise

Exactly.

We have to remember that the legislation around alcohol delivery is decades old, from a time when the LCBO and Brewers Retail were the only places in the province to legally buy alcohol via retail sales. And unlike special events permits, which are issued on a constant basis and have changed with the times, I suspect that this is the first time anyone has tried to offer a third-party delivery service dealing directly with a brewery.

So while there are undoubtedly several shitty aspects to the story - the fact that the AGCO initially approved it and then reneged; the fact that some other shitheel brewery complained; and the fact that a worthy charity is suffering because of it - I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this ends up leading to the alcohol delivery legislation being changed to be more in line with the special events permits.

The big question is how long it takes for that to happen.

GregClow wrote: So while there are undoubtedly several shitty aspects to the story - the fact that the AGCO initially approved it and then reneged; the fact that some other shitheel brewery complained; and the fact that a worthy charity is suffering because of it - I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this ends up leading to the alcohol delivery legislation being changed to be more in line with the special events permits.

The big question is how long it takes for that to happen.

Pretty much. It will be interesting to see what if any fireworks result in the process.

I think it's good that Ontario is encouraging people to get in their own cars if they want to drink! Also important to burn up lots of expensive fossil fuels.

Actually people without cars should just stay at home and stop trying to work or buy things or contribute to Ontario's economic growth. We should gut all public transit while we're behind.

THAT is called 'vision.'