Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Buildz: And you thought you were sooo original . . .

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Buildz: And you thought you were sooo original . . .


    An interesting discussion is going on concerning Evolute’s patent on freeform surfaces in buildings consisting of planar quadrilateral or hexagonal faces. This isn’t a patent on the process to create them . . . it’s for the whole category of resulting built forms.  Check out the summary of the patents here (and don’t be afraid to read the full patents too).
    Also see these links:

    What do you think? Look at the forms below, do they count? If there is math underlying the form, is it freeform?  Have you made something that qualifies?
    J. Gribl’s Hippo House, Berlin, with Schlaich Bergermann and Partner, 1996.  While it looks organic, is this “freeform” ?  It’s actually a “translational surface”, so I’m not sure if it qualifies. 

    Some Gehry . . . surely freeform, but not planar, just expensive.

    Eladio Dieste, Church circa 1960.  Nice and wiggly with many many flat quad faces. But actually they’re ruled surfaces, and there isn’t a support structure.

    A patio in Massachusetts, circa 2005.  Probably the closest example of freeform with planar quads, but again no support structure.

    In the end it isn’t so much about proving pre-existing art (I’m sure there are examples between 2000 and 2007 at least) but is it CONCEPTUALY o.k. to patent built forms?  Isn’t it more appropriate to patent the process that attains the geometry?  But what if the inventor of the Television patented the process of creating the TV, rather than the outcome?  And what is “freeform”?  Are there any precedents for this specific kind of building pre-2000? 1990?  1900?  Are we able to separate “CAN you patent that?” (which is a legal question)  from “SHOULD you patent that?” (which is a philosophical question).
    I don’t have the answers to this, my gut tells me something isn’t right . . . but I also don’t think the implications are obvious.  What do you think?




    Click here to view the entire blog post.

Related Topics

Collapse

  • Buildz: Happy Halloween, III!

    It’s time to announce the winners for the 3rd Annual Parametric Pumpkin Carving Contest.  As always, we have the Baddest, the Goodest,...
    October 31, 2011, 07:45 PM
  • Buildz: Karma

    The Boy and I just sat down to a new project, we're going build a quadcopter, because they're awesome. We thought: let's give ourselves...
    August 12, 2015, 11:45 PM
  • Buildz: Know Fun

    “Games lubricate the body and mind” -Ben Franklin
    In response to some recent conversations about feature functionalities that are...
    August 6, 2012, 04:45 PM
  • Buildz: Happy Halloween IV
    [John Fout’s pumpkin attacking a coworker’s structure]
    Good evening, and welcome to the 4th Annual Parametric Pumpkin Carving! ...
    November 1, 2012, 04:15 AM
  • Malleristicrevitation: What is your role as an Architect? (How i spent my week in the
    If youre on my Facebook page or Google+ or Twitter, youve seen these images already. However, this week and last i got to engage one of our Project Teams,...
    February 11, 2012, 09:45 PM
Working...
X