It is outlandish that a patent has been granted to Apple for two rows of tables placed in one point perspective in the middle of a room. Really? What’s next Zaha putting a patent on SubD architecture?
The profession of architecture is historically derivative as have been other design fields. Do patents really have a place in something as subjective as design aesthetic?
Apple likes to put patents on things but they seem to forget how their "unique" design aesthetic has been derivative itself of Braun.
It also gives Apple a stronger foundation from which to pursue direct copycats stores like we've seen in China.
Also, I imagine places like Target and Starbucks have trademarked their store layouts as well. I have no problem with this.
Where it impacts architects is in contract language about who owns the rights to the design, but again, this is nothing new in terms of architectural contract law.
The argument can also be made that someone like Frank Gehry also designs full branded environments. Shouldn't his signature aluminum cladded blobs merit the criteria for trademark? (The same can be said of countless other starchitects).
I'm just concerned about the spill over of litigation onto our field over deep pocket clients suing over who copied who.
A trademark is not going to protect anyone from getting bootlegged in China. Just like a consumer recognizes value in owning the legitimate product as a status symbol, i'm sure that Zaha rip off mentioned in the Wired article will also be valued as second rate.
The Braun comparisons are very nice. This gives me an idea: What if we trademarked really shitty designs? Could we then sue designers of such pieces of shit, thus significantly improving the built environment?
Future Patent Wars in Architecture? Why thank you Apple
I'm really surprised there has not being any news/editorial on this at Archinect.
http://www.wired.com/design/2013/01/apple-store-trademark/
It is outlandish that a patent has been granted to Apple for two rows of tables placed in one point perspective in the middle of a room. Really? What’s next Zaha putting a patent on SubD architecture?
The profession of architecture is historically derivative as have been other design fields. Do patents really have a place in something as subjective as design aesthetic?
Apple likes to put patents on things but they seem to forget how their "unique" design aesthetic has been derivative itself of Braun.
TRADEMARKED not PATENTED. Huge distinction. This one may have impact on architecture only in terms of branded environments.
It also gives Apple a stronger foundation from which to pursue direct copycats stores like we've seen in China.
Also, I imagine places like Target and Starbucks have trademarked their store layouts as well. I have no problem with this.
Where it impacts architects is in contract language about who owns the rights to the design, but again, this is nothing new in terms of architectural contract law.
Nice Braun-Apple chart, though.
Interesting. Using Zaha as an example, and sourcing wired in reference to copying.
http://www.wired.com/design/2013/01/chinese-building-pirates-zaha-hadid/
My bad on the trademark/patent mixup.
The argument can also be made that someone like Frank Gehry also designs full branded environments. Shouldn't his signature aluminum cladded blobs merit the criteria for trademark? (The same can be said of countless other starchitects).
I'm just concerned about the spill over of litigation onto our field over deep pocket clients suing over who copied who.
A trademark is not going to protect anyone from getting bootlegged in China. Just like a consumer recognizes value in owning the legitimate product as a status symbol, i'm sure that Zaha rip off mentioned in the Wired article will also be valued as second rate.
The Braun comparisons are very nice. This gives me an idea: What if we trademarked really shitty designs? Could we then sue designers of such pieces of shit, thus significantly improving the built environment?
Interestingly Apple HAS patented architecture.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=8,544,217.PN.&OS=pn/8,544,217&RS=PN/8,544,217
People who patent glass houses shouldn't piss off people who throw stones.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.