3 ms·

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 app

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.
mikhailt 10y ago
No, it really isn't. The person who built that piece of furniture does not deserve an overall control of the design for the person's lifespan + 70 years. There is not a single rational justification for the 100+ year protection, nor should the society protect the few's livelihood when it can benefit everyone once the protection expires. Switch your scenario the other way around because the reality is, the laws benefit larger companies more than the small indies. A lot of people in US didn't patent their ideas because it cost money to even start the patent process with a lawyer (you have to pay to research prior arts and so on). Your scenario switch: A company built and patent that same furniture design and you as a small time designer can never sell that design with your own improvements on top of it for practically over 100 years. You cannot improve on a basic copyright unless you have permission. You can end up in a scenario where a massive amount of copyrighted designs are owned by a single company and there is nothing anyone can do for 100+ years. The original purpose of the copyright (in US) was to push the society forward by promoting the arts and science by protecting the creator's work for a limited period of time, so everyone's motivated to create original stuff. Society suffers from extended protected terms. I'm okay with protecting the person's work for 10-20 years once the work is done, but there is no justification for 100+ years. I don't care if that person goes out of work in 20 years, it's not up to us to protect him for life. In this age with ~7 billion of people, the right of one single person (or one company) over hundreds of millions of folks is no longer sane.

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.

mikhailt 10y ago

No, it really isn't. The person who built that piece of furniture does not deserve an overall control of the design for the person's lifespan + 70 years. There is not a single rational justification for the 100+ year protection, nor should the society protect the few's livelihood when it can benefit everyone once the protection expires. Switch your scenario the other way around because the reality is, the laws benefit larger companies more than the small indies. A lot of people in US didn't patent their ideas because it cost money to even start the patent process with a lawyer (you have to pay to research prior arts and so on). Your scenario switch: A company built and patent that same furniture design and you as a small time designer can never sell that design with your own improvements on top of it for practically over 100 years. You cannot improve on a basic copyright unless you have permission. You can end up in a scenario where a massive amount of copyrighted designs are owned by a single company and there is nothing anyone can do for 100+ years. The original purpose of the copyright (in US) was to push the society forward by promoting the arts and science by protecting the creator's work for a limited period of time, so everyone's motivated to create original stuff. Society suffers from extended protected terms. I'm okay with protecting the person's work for 10-20 years once the work is done, but there is no justification for 100+ years. I don't care if that person goes out of work in 20 years, it's not up to us to protect him for life. In this age with ~7 billion of people, the right of one single person (or one company) over hundreds of millions of folks is no longer sane.