What Do You Get When You Strip Patent Illustrations From All Context?
from the context-is-key dept
When filling out a patent application, the purpose is two-fold. The first purpose of the application is to provide enough information for the patent examiner to determine if your invention is original and non-obvious, thus patentable. The second purpose of the application is to provide enough information for someone skilled in the art the invention falls under to recreate the invention. Often to fulfill these two purposes it is necessary to include illustrations to help visualize key parts that may be difficult to explain solely in writing. Yet, what happens when you strip these images out of the application and look at them without any context at all? Would you be able to discern just from the image what the patent is? Via io9, we learn of a Tumblr account that takes this idea of context free patent illustrations and runs with it.Let's take a look at a few of these illustrations and see just what each might be:
Either Ian Bogost has been granted a patent for clicking a cow on the internet or someone has patented the sirloin steak.
It looks like someone has invented a new method for dispensing cats for adoption via a very large crane game. Not sure how happy the cats will be when adopted, but the game sure looks fun.
While I have often wondered why my 6 year-old's crayon drawings need copyright, I can tell by these next couple of illustrations that even without copyright she could make quite the living drawing illustrations for patent applications.
I can honestly say, my daughter's art is way better.
Who would have thought that people might want to wear shoes while wrestling? I know I certainly wouldn't have conceived of the idea had it not been for this patent application.
Ooh. Looks like someone has been awarded a patent on modern copyright maximalist strategy. The mine cart represents the one track mind of those seeking more enforcement legislation. The Whac-a-Mole represents how effective those measures are in real life. I like it.
While I feel that illustrations can be invaluable to a properly filed application, especially for those seeking to use those applications when the patents expire, one must really look at these sample illustrations and many of the others posted in the Tumblr blog and wonder, "Are these illustrations really helping to promote the progress?"
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: illustration, innovation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What?
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shoes
Well there was a time when wearing shoes at all was considered novel, and would have been worthy of a patent. And since patents last forever, that means shoes should still be patentable, right? I mean, innovation is innovation...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Missing illustration.
http://since1968.com/images/58.png
I'm pretty sure it's a software patent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Shoes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You're doing all the right things, Zach, by trying to make all IP seem stupid. Pulling illustrations out of applications and looking at them out of context is a great strategy. Mikey teaches you well.
But to answer your question, if the illustrations are part of an application that is granted, then that means they're part of an invention was new, useful, and nonobvious. And that means the invention has advanced the state of the art, and therefore, it has promoted the progress.
Looking at a single illustration, out of context, and without more information, is not the proper way to frame it. That is, of course, unless you're writing another mindless, baseless, and idiotic piece for TechTurd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Missing illustration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Run on
I'm by no means a grammar guru, but am I the only one confused here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Run on
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Heh, are you really so naive that you are placing that much blind faith in the patent system?
I mean, what you just said sounds nice at all, and it supposed to be true in theory - but you obviously don't know much about the state of the patent office if you think it has worked that way in practice.
The contextless illustrations are, yes, a bit of a joke - Zach's just having some fun I think. But it's not half so good a joke as your romantic words about patents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Missing illustration.
As one of the panelists on the show put it: "So you can spend your last few minutes alive breathing toilet air."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Missing illustration.
In addition to the awesome pic it has some great quotes too (when properly taken out of context):
*Fresh Air* I don't want to visit that hotel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I wish I could see your face right now to see if you are saying that with a straight face, because surely you are kidding me.
Even IP lawyers have blogs dedicated to mocking the patent system today because they allow everything if you submit enough times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Innovative Fish Processing Factory
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Shoes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Non-obvious innovation at its finest!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Run on
Someone who works in the field that your patent is related to can recreate whatever you are patenting just by looking at your application.
In other words it is suppose to be clear, detailed, logical and concise. Which is a laugh if you look at most patent apps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It got a patent, ergo, it is a triumph of the human spirit.
The patent on "Speak haired homunculus with oversized shoes holding a gun incorrectly, pointing it at large armed man in toga" has saved us from the dangers of large-armed men in togas, including children. You don't hate children, do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zachary Knight Looks like someone clicking a cow on the internet. my 6 year-old's crayon drawings of Zachary Knight is way better. Zachary Knight might want to wear shoes while filling out a mine cart.
Taken out of context, most things don't make sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Run on
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I guess if it justifies your continued presence here, feel free to continue missing the point.
But to answer your question, if the illustrations are part of an application that is granted, then that means they're part of an invention was new, useful, and nonobvious. And that means the invention has advanced the state of the art, and therefore, it has promoted the progress.
You are incredibly naive if you think every patent granted is "new, useful, and nonobvious". You have obviously never spent any time in the software industry. Patents granted on software are rarely if ever "new, useful, and nonobvious" Most of the time, they are granted on something old, used often or obvious to anyone tackling the same problem.
Looking at a single illustration, out of context, and without more information, is not the proper way to frame it. That is, of course, unless you're writing another mindless, baseless, and idiotic piece for TechTurd.
Or when someone is writing up a humorous post about crudely drawn patent illustrations.
Seriously, were you born without a sense of humor or was it beaten out of you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Either way, it comes to the same thing - you cannot draw a conclusion from the images or "your" statement above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I...Cannot draw...the images...above.
There. Now I have definitive proof that you are incapable of even crude drawings.
PS: Yes, I know that even that is not a real example of taking something out of context. But it sure is funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
still one of my favorite patents
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
funny...
Patents on a real evaluated level can make sense but as long as the select few are the ones getting patents then like all other things there is no room for creativity or competition. It's as bad as "quotas" and police...nothing good happens when you have to be self-fulfilling. Patents on the real, equals no profit to the entities evaluating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: still one of my favorite patents
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: still one of my favorite patents
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patent illustrations
Illustrations (at least one, specifically) are REQUIRED in patents, and where they don't make sense this can lead to strange results.
Further, a disclosure REQUIRES a related illustration, and an illustration REQUIRES a related disclosure (that's what the numbers with leaders are for, for the totally ignorant!).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WHich one is your daughter's????
[ link to this | view in thread ]