3 ms·

Interesting this was patentable, it's just applying a known concept (a shape that cuts wind resistance) to ships.

by supergreg 10y ago

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
That's what patents are all about.
- 1gn1t10n 10y ago
  Normally it is not patentable if it's obvious to a person skilled in the topic, if there is prior art, or if there is no business application. I would say this fails two out of three.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Assuming the patent is simply "curved superstructure" and not "superstructure designed to minimize a certain function of wind shear forces over a variety of angles vs a vector parallel to the direction of travel". That's not a trivial problem; its not clear anybody else has ever done it this particular way; and it has a clear business application (minimizing fuel costs for maritime transport). Sounds like a home run to me!
vlehto 10y ago
Hopefully it's not enforceable.
- JBReefer 10y ago
  Not everything is software
  - vlehto 10y ago
    I don't understand?
jws 10y ago
Boat hulls and decks have specific laws which make them patentable. In 1988 Florida tried to make a law protecting boat hull designs and was shot down by the US Supreme Court. Legislators got involved and so part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act includes protection of hull designs. The rationale is: As a boat maker you have experts do a lot of very expensive work with thinking, simulation, real world modeling, building and testing full sized prototypes sweating all the little fiddly details. You finally stumble upon a good hull for some market. Then you spend dump truck loads of marketing money to convince people that it is a good hull for their boating needs. Success! So some clown then borrows one of the boats, makes a mold, and starts selling them cheaper with no R&D expenses and customers flock to him because they can tell its "just like" your boat. Fun legal/programmer note: The law had to be fixed in 2009 because some of aforesaid clowns figured out that "hull" was defined to be the hull and the deck, so they were making molds, copying the hull and changing an irrelevant detail on the deck and counting as a different design. The 2009 law splits hull and deck, fixes a bunch of AND and OR logic, and closes that bug report on the law.
- mc32 10y ago
  So that piques my curiosity, why don't car manufacturers go the same route? Apparently in some parts of the world some new car MFGs copy the look and feel of more expensive cars and other than complain a bit, the other manufacturers don't seem to enter into litigation with each other over design much --given the very similar designs some models have.
  - Zak 10y ago
    Probably because car manufacturers haven't lobbied the relevant governments successfully. I suspect in many cases, the companies doing the copying are local and therefore have more influence over the relevant government than the foreign company that originated the design. We also see a lot of cases where the copying isn't really copying. The first generation of Lexus IS300, for example was a compact rear wheel drive luxury sedan with an inline six engine and sporty handling. Most car people reading that description would immediately think "BMW 3-series", and that was, of course the best-known entry in market the IS300 was intended for. It's hardly a clone though; no component was directly copied from BMW, the styling was clearly not intended to be mistaken for a BMW product, the engine was already used in other Toyota products, etc....
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ptha 10y ago
The last line of the article was quite interesting: President Katsuhiko Ochi continues to inspire employees to make new designs and hull forms that cannot be copied by other companies.

Interesting this was patentable, it's just applying a known concept (a shape that cuts wind resistance) to ships.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

That's what patents are all about.

1gn1t10n 10y ago
Normally it is not patentable if it's obvious to a person skilled in the topic, if there is prior art, or if there is no business application. I would say this fails two out of three.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Assuming the patent is simply "curved superstructure" and not "superstructure designed to minimize a certain function of wind shear forces over a variety of angles vs a vector parallel to the direction of travel". That's not a trivial problem; its not clear anybody else has ever done it this particular way; and it has a clear business application (minimizing fuel costs for maritime transport). Sounds like a home run to me!

vlehto 10y ago

Hopefully it's not enforceable.

JBReefer 10y ago
Not everything is software
- vlehto 10y ago
  I don't understand?

jws 10y ago

Boat hulls and decks have specific laws which make them patentable. In 1988 Florida tried to make a law protecting boat hull designs and was shot down by the US Supreme Court. Legislators got involved and so part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act includes protection of hull designs. The rationale is: As a boat maker you have experts do a lot of very expensive work with thinking, simulation, real world modeling, building and testing full sized prototypes sweating all the little fiddly details. You finally stumble upon a good hull for some market. Then you spend dump truck loads of marketing money to convince people that it is a good hull for their boating needs. Success! So some clown then borrows one of the boats, makes a mold, and starts selling them cheaper with no R&D expenses and customers flock to him because they can tell its "just like" your boat. Fun legal/programmer note: The law had to be fixed in 2009 because some of aforesaid clowns figured out that "hull" was defined to be the hull and the deck, so they were making molds, copying the hull and changing an irrelevant detail on the deck and counting as a different design. The 2009 law splits hull and deck, fixes a bunch of AND and OR logic, and closes that bug report on the law.

mc32 10y ago
So that piques my curiosity, why don't car manufacturers go the same route? Apparently in some parts of the world some new car MFGs copy the look and feel of more expensive cars and other than complain a bit, the other manufacturers don't seem to enter into litigation with each other over design much --given the very similar designs some models have.
- Zak 10y ago
  Probably because car manufacturers haven't lobbied the relevant governments successfully. I suspect in many cases, the companies doing the copying are local and therefore have more influence over the relevant government than the foreign company that originated the design. We also see a lot of cases where the copying isn't really copying. The first generation of Lexus IS300, for example was a compact rear wheel drive luxury sedan with an inline six engine and sporty handling. Most car people reading that description would immediately think "BMW 3-series", and that was, of course the best-known entry in market the IS300 was intended for. It's hardly a clone though; no component was directly copied from BMW, the styling was clearly not intended to be mistaken for a BMW product, the engine was already used in other Toyota products, etc....

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ptha 10y ago

The last line of the article was quite interesting: President Katsuhiko Ochi continues to inspire employees to make new designs and hull forms that cannot be copied by other companies.