Google Groups

Re: Ice cubes are patented...?


Simon Slavin Aug 15, 2008 1:37 PM
Posted in group: alt.folklore.urban
On 12/08/2008, David DeLaney wrote in message
<slrnga50o...@gatekeeper.vic.com>:
 
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >David DeLaney <d...@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote:
> >> Krystal's has prior art.  But you could probably make a case for a
> >> cubical one.
> >
> >Patents are supposed to only be for unobvious things.  Even if nobody
> >has ever made ise in the form of, for instance, a dodecahedron, it's
> >an obvious idea, hence not patentable.  A particular device or method
> >for making dodecahedral ice may be patentable, if it's not something
> >obvious such as a dodecahedral mold to pour water into.
>
> Um. I'm not sure I'd count "dodecahedral ice cubes!" as Obvious. (And
> it's very hard to enforce "if it's obvious +after someone else sees it,
> it's not patentable", because there's quite a lot of stuff that IS only
> obvious once you see it or someone tells you about it...) Mainly because
> most of the population doesn't know what a dodecahedron -is-.

There's also the question of usefulness.  To be patentable dodecahedral
ice moulds would have to be superior to existing designs in some way.
They don't have to have net superiority: they can have lots of drawbacks
too, but they do have to have some reason that people might want to make
them.  Otherwise it's not an invention, it's art.

Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk