> 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.