patenting geometry

hi guys, this may be of interest to all us.

http://www.nzarchitecture.com/blog/index.php/2011/08/29/patenting-g...

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Lewis on September 7, 2011 at 11:26am

Again I think the other issue is why did Evolute tell Kangaroo to include their patent? Thats what I find terrible. What on earth does kangaroo, a physis solver, have to do with Evolute and why shouls Evolute piggy back on the work of Kangaroo? It seems very mean spirited and I hope not a sign of the futrue. Its not like two programs are competing.

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on September 7, 2011 at 12:16pm

It's basically a warning to anyone who uses Kangaroo to achieve similar results. It's absurd. They insist that because they've demonstrated the structural benefits of the particular types of planar elements defined in their patent, any structure that exhibits the same behavior through its form is an infringement on their intellectual property. It's specious logic and, I think, sour grapes on their part. Apple's overzealous patents are a good parallel.

I used to consider them role models - and their work really is wonderful -yet now I sadly disdain them. Even if they DID have a legal leg to stand on - and I doubt that this patent would hold up in court - their pettiness in this whole affair reveals an aspect of their business that is at once arrogant and counter-community development. They frankly should be ashamed of themselves. It merits my boycott.

Permalink Reply by sowhat on September 8, 2011 at 8:18am

international search report. is this patent save?

http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000012...

Permalink Reply by Florin Isvoranu on September 8, 2011 at 9:05am

This document lists concerns about the novelty of the patent SUPPORTING STRUCTURE FOR CURVED ENVELOPE GEOMETRIES that were raised as part of the standard approval process of the patent. Since the patent has been approved eventually, it is obvious that these concerns were dropped and novelty could be proven successfully.

Best,

Evolute

Permalink Reply by Steve Lewis on September 8, 2011 at 9:46am

Lucky you. Do you have a patent for supporting structures composed of vertical and horizontal members carrying gravity load. What about curved surfaces found using form finding algorithms which were developed way before evolute.

Permalink Reply by Michael Pryor on September 8, 2011 at 10:06am

They couldn't get the first one because I already patented gravity.

Permalink Reply by ANGELOS on September 8, 2011 at 10:10am

As these persons obviously have this level ----

which is another level as set by ARGYRIS, LINKWITZ, OTTO, etc.

-only to mention a few real masters of freeform-

we all should not waist energy on them and their obsessions.

(or is it caled "being possesed by sth?")

Permalink Reply by Claudio on September 8, 2011 at 10:32am

I agree, this is a real joke, please guys let it be....all geometry already exist in nature..come on evolute I was going to buy your plug-in...but from now on I will only design boxes with punched windows on it..I've just patented that concept....

Permalink Reply by Steve Lewis on September 8, 2011 at 10:51am

So what about the precedent of the walt disney hall which cllearly has a supporting backing structure for a free form structure - this was constructed in 2002 but design started in 1998; before Evolute.

Attachments:

Capture.JPG, 76 KB

Permalink Reply by Michael Pryor on September 8, 2011 at 12:05pm

This is why we cant have nice things.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Davis on September 8, 2011 at 5:30pm

That is not true Florin. The onus on proving the novelty/validity of a patent does not belong to the patent office, but is the responsibility of the patent holder if/when the patent is contested in court. This is why people have been able to patent things like toast and why discussion of whether Evolute's patents are novel is very important for the community in working out the worth of the patents.

Anyone interested in the process of patenting should check out the This American Life episode on patents and patent trolls:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-pat...

Permalink Reply by sowhat on September 9, 2011 at 12:46am

I do not understand this patent thingy. This report questions not only novelty but also inventive steps of the given patent, rating all ten claims negative. I even understand most of the explanations appended.

The same person, signs this report (english here) rating all ten claims positive with regards to novelty and invention? I do not quite follow/understand the reasons based on the documents published.

I think this is part of the patent approval process and that technically one would need to be a patent lawyer to understand this completely. For me, the questions remain