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 Fred Becquelin on September 2, 2011 at 6:03am

I hope bees and wasp have good lawyers...

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on September 2, 2011 at 6:25am

Thanks for this. I look forward to hearing more about how this all plays out.

Permalink Reply by Steve Lewis on September 2, 2011 at 2:23pm

Yeah I saw this Patent a few months back and seemed like it was as bad as Lodsys with their claim that all Apple App developers had to pay them for their in-app patent. My buddy at the time didn’t think the Evolute patent wouldn’t go anywhere. I think it’s a low thing to go and contact the developer of Kangaroo and request the patent be mentioned. Especially when the developer is a hobbyist.

In a time when we are struggling economically, we have these patent trolls who contribute no end product, stifling the endeavor and hard work man ship of motivated hobbyists. Same for bankers, lawyers. They have absolutely nothing tangible to contribute, just preventing innovation, shuffling cash and restricting the small man to try and better himself. A patent troll is the worst, thinking of an idea, without actually making any effort to make it a reality, and wait for the person with passion and drive to do it so they can cash in. After all, isn’t a hobbyist what the grasshopper community is all about? Imagine if a patent troll got hold of Mr Rutten before grass hopper exploded? What a waste if he was discouraged and decided not to pursue GH. How many structures in the world would not have been built, because of a patent troll? How is that possibly good for innovation and the economy? Madness.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Piker on September 3, 2011 at 4:28am

Very interesting post by Daniel Davis, and very interesting discussion in the comments there...

I've posted some comments and clarification of my own here:

http://spacesymmetrystructure.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/patents-prec...

and RubberDuck - yes Evolute did ask me to mention the patent, but it's actually the users of Kangaroo that are apparently in danger of getting into legal trouble if they build something designed using certain features of Kangaroo.

Permalink Reply by Ante Ljubas on September 3, 2011 at 7:22am

even though evolute behaves like apple on copyright issues with microsoft your piece of software has surely a much more apple-ish touch... something like iphone or ipad... still there has to be development though nobody wants evolute to go poor either... i think it´s basically a fear of loosing customers to some wise guy giving better or cheaper services with your help... so they start patenting the built environment to shy away the look-alikes... a little bit simplified but that´s the way it might be ;o)

Permalink Reply by RWNB on September 3, 2011 at 9:34am

interesting...

dear daniel,

many thanks for the informative references.

Permalink Reply by Steve Lewis on September 4, 2011 at 3:32am

That is awful man. Really bad. The geometry your users find is due to the particle spring system algorithm. It was found; not described. What does that have to do with evolute? Does evolute have the copyright to a simply supported bridge geometry? Shall we all copyright the equation of a simply supported beam to enable us to describe the required span and depth of a bridge?

Permalink Reply by Mateusz Zwierzycki on September 3, 2011 at 3:33pm

So this type of construction :

http://www.arkadakod.com.pl/fck_uploads/image/WSG%20(5)(1).jpg

is also restricted by

http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO200714...

????????????????????????????

"i dont want to live on this planet anymore"

I am really mad about this.

Permalink Reply by Mateusz Zwierzycki on September 3, 2011 at 3:39pm

and they forgot about logic : flat surface is also a freeform surface, but with 0 curvature in U and V.

Permalink Reply by Daniel Davis on September 6, 2011 at 4:06am

Hi Mateusz,

Fortunately the patent isn't broad enough to cover something as simple as this. There is translational symmetry in the underlying surface, so it is, by Evolute's definition, not free form. But certainly using Kangaroo you could make something that can't be built without a licence.

Daniel

Permalink Reply by Nathan Miller on September 3, 2011 at 11:43pm

Let us not forget Evolute's side of the story: http://blog.evolute.at/?p=112

To paraphrase the post: "we are not patenting the geometry or a process... but if you make a physical building with the geometry, you owe us."

It's all in the semantics... oh boy...

bees and wasps indeed....

Permalink Reply by Joshua Seskis on September 4, 2011 at 2:34am

This is hardly surprising considering the trends in the business world of patenting everything. I'm sure come time to test it in court it will be as divisive as Gene patents have been.

Unfortunately patents are just another form of assets for a business.