3 ms·

Yes, but designers are a minuscule part of society. Laws shouldn't benefit a few at the expense of the many. I guess incentivising originality is the benefit to

by jordigh 10y ago

Yes, but designers are a minuscule part of society. Laws shouldn't benefit a few at the expense of the many. I guess incentivising originality is the benefit to the many. Are we better served by original furniture designs than by the ability to build our own furniture, however it may be shaped?

KaiserPro 10y ago
Should they not be paid for their work? I don't see how it is an advantage to allow people to rip off original designers, present it as their own work and charge a premium.
- 9mit3t2m9h9a 10y ago
  Every legal protection creates a possibility of costly litigation, including a possibility of a litigation that is costly despite the claim being bogus. A design patent (and a regular patent, too) can be broad enough to cover all the obvious solutions to an obvious problem. Even if it covers things that existed before the plaintiff started working on things described in the design patent, it still costs a lot to defend against it even when the prior art is obvious.
- jordigh 10y ago
  If their work is valuable, sure. If we can easily replicate accidentally (remember, design patents do not involve deliberate copying, but copyright does), then their work isn't valuable to us, since we are able to do it on our on accident. And it appears that in this situation it's the designers pushing for this legislation that are charging a premium.
- wickedlogic 10y ago
  Because rarely is it really their own work, often just subtle variations on prior designs. And in practice... original designers do not win unless they are also backed by large companies. This is not about individual designers... this is about companies preventing individuals from copying them.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  You know, maybe not. We don't guarantee that effort equals reward anywhere else. You can go tilt against windmills all day, everyday, and find that either because nobody wanted them tilted (hah) or simply through poor execution, you can't make a living at it. Why does some work deserve a hundred-year monopoly on anything like it, but other work does not? Why does designing a chair deserve it, but designing a website UI (not the content) not? And if building a Web UI out of standard parts (ie legs and cushions in the chair metaphor) does deserve protection, when do other people get to use a slider in combination with a dropdown, or whatever my minor innovation was? How long do I deserve to keep the world from using the standard toolbox just because I was first? The process of invention, and the domain (chairs, programming, UX design) seem obscure and complex to the naive viewer and yet obvious to other practitioners. Unfortunately our system is based on asking people who do not work in the field what elements deserve protection. That's what protected slide-to-unlock.
ethanbond 10y ago
How exactly are you going to, you know, design that piece of furniture? Are you going to go through the many years of schooling and/or decades of practical applied crafting that it takes to make a worthwhile piece of furniture? So let's say you do that. You make yourself a really great piece, and your friends want to buy it because they didn't want to suffer the 10+ year path to making something worthwhile. You start selling to your friends, but then Walmart comes and makes a near replica at a quarter the price through economies of scale. You wouldn't be upset? Would you make another piece of furniture? Would anyone else commit to 10+ years of craftsmanship to learn to do so? This seems pretty straightforward.
- jordigh 10y ago
  The real boogeyman in this legislation, i.e. the intended target as described in the article, seems to be China making cheap replicas. I think cheap replicas are probably a good thing. Why wouldn't I want the same thing but cheaper? It's not my job to ensure that local designers stay in business. Especially not if their design patents (which is what I'm asking about) can be reproduced accidentally. For example, since clothing is much too necessary, universal, and functional, there are no patents or copyrights on clothing design. I think that's a good thing. The only thing you can do with clothing is trademarks, so as long as a similar-looking garment doesn't say it was made by some other designer, I don't see a problem with copying clothes. Why does furniture have design patents? Design patents cover similar designs as the original, and there's no need to demonstrate that they were copied. How does punishing "independent invention" (legal term for utility patents) help us with design patents?
- Shivetya 10y ago
  however my question is, how do they decide a piece of furniture does a task so much different and better than another that is warrants protection? There is just too much ambiguity in this interpretation. worse the whole is motivated by national protectionism and not trying to protect designers etc. how about designers adopting to the new technology and selling personal use models that will work with standardized printers. The allure of most furniture is in the craftsmanship and I seriously doubt any 3d printer will be more that the quality of deck furniture and cheap deck furniture. Its like having your own IKEA furniture printer, minus the cushions and such. whats next, limiting utensils and dinnerware? Chairs are generic, tables are too, your not going to put a designer out of business with your 3d printed chair.
michaelt 10y ago
Doctors are a minuscule part of society. I still benefit from their existence because I benefit from having access to the services they provide. This law's still bullshit, of course.
- welterde 10y ago
  Is there significant legislation that only benefits doctors at the expense of everyone else? Only legislation that's designed to protect their customers comes to mind right now.

by jordigh 10y ago

KaiserPro 10y ago

Should they not be paid for their work? I don't see how it is an advantage to allow people to rip off original designers, present it as their own work and charge a premium.

9mit3t2m9h9a 10y ago
Every legal protection creates a possibility of costly litigation, including a possibility of a litigation that is costly despite the claim being bogus. A design patent (and a regular patent, too) can be broad enough to cover all the obvious solutions to an obvious problem. Even if it covers things that existed before the plaintiff started working on things described in the design patent, it still costs a lot to defend against it even when the prior art is obvious.
jordigh 10y ago
If their work is valuable, sure. If we can easily replicate accidentally (remember, design patents do not involve deliberate copying, but copyright does), then their work isn't valuable to us, since we are able to do it on our on accident. And it appears that in this situation it's the designers pushing for this legislation that are charging a premium.
wickedlogic 10y ago
Because rarely is it really their own work, often just subtle variations on prior designs. And in practice... original designers do not win unless they are also backed by large companies. This is not about individual designers... this is about companies preventing individuals from copying them.
EdHominem 10y ago
You know, maybe not. We don't guarantee that effort equals reward anywhere else. You can go tilt against windmills all day, everyday, and find that either because nobody wanted them tilted (hah) or simply through poor execution, you can't make a living at it. Why does some work deserve a hundred-year monopoly on anything like it, but other work does not? Why does designing a chair deserve it, but designing a website UI (not the content) not? And if building a Web UI out of standard parts (ie legs and cushions in the chair metaphor) does deserve protection, when do other people get to use a slider in combination with a dropdown, or whatever my minor innovation was? How long do I deserve to keep the world from using the standard toolbox just because I was first? The process of invention, and the domain (chairs, programming, UX design) seem obscure and complex to the naive viewer and yet obvious to other practitioners. Unfortunately our system is based on asking people who do not work in the field what elements deserve protection. That's what protected slide-to-unlock.

ethanbond 10y ago

How exactly are you going to, you know, design that piece of furniture? Are you going to go through the many years of schooling and/or decades of practical applied crafting that it takes to make a worthwhile piece of furniture? So let's say you do that. You make yourself a really great piece, and your friends want to buy it because they didn't want to suffer the 10+ year path to making something worthwhile. You start selling to your friends, but then Walmart comes and makes a near replica at a quarter the price through economies of scale. You wouldn't be upset? Would you make another piece of furniture? Would anyone else commit to 10+ years of craftsmanship to learn to do so? This seems pretty straightforward.

jordigh 10y ago
The real boogeyman in this legislation, i.e. the intended target as described in the article, seems to be China making cheap replicas. I think cheap replicas are probably a good thing. Why wouldn't I want the same thing but cheaper? It's not my job to ensure that local designers stay in business. Especially not if their design patents (which is what I'm asking about) can be reproduced accidentally. For example, since clothing is much too necessary, universal, and functional, there are no patents or copyrights on clothing design. I think that's a good thing. The only thing you can do with clothing is trademarks, so as long as a similar-looking garment doesn't say it was made by some other designer, I don't see a problem with copying clothes. Why does furniture have design patents? Design patents cover similar designs as the original, and there's no need to demonstrate that they were copied. How does punishing "independent invention" (legal term for utility patents) help us with design patents?
Shivetya 10y ago
however my question is, how do they decide a piece of furniture does a task so much different and better than another that is warrants protection? There is just too much ambiguity in this interpretation. worse the whole is motivated by national protectionism and not trying to protect designers etc. how about designers adopting to the new technology and selling personal use models that will work with standardized printers. The allure of most furniture is in the craftsmanship and I seriously doubt any 3d printer will be more that the quality of deck furniture and cheap deck furniture. Its like having your own IKEA furniture printer, minus the cushions and such. whats next, limiting utensils and dinnerware? Chairs are generic, tables are too, your not going to put a designer out of business with your 3d printed chair.

michaelt 10y ago

Doctors are a minuscule part of society. I still benefit from their existence because I benefit from having access to the services they provide. This law's still bullshit, of course.

welterde 10y ago
Is there significant legislation that only benefits doctors at the expense of everyone else? Only legislation that's designed to protect their customers comes to mind right now.