Zen And The Art Of Patent Protecting Zen Art

from the how-very-unzen dept

A person who prefers to remain anonymous points us to the "legal" page for an operation called Zentangle, which is apparently a method of creating artwork, with a bit of zen thrown in. But, what struck the submitter (and us) as particularly unzen, was the focus on intellectual property up and down the page. It doesn't seem particularly "zen" to demand how everyone should refer to Zentangle. There may be a legitimate trademark interest (though, it does look like they're overprotecting), but where things really get bizarre is the claim that the method for teaching this particular form of art is patent pending.

Indeed, the folks behind this have a pending patent application (which is also embedded below), and as you might imagine it seems a bit silly. Just for kicks, here's claim one:

1. A method for creating an abstract artwork, comprising the steps of:

a) Instructing a user to mark dots around the inside perimeter of a marking surface, using a temporary marking device;
b) Instructing the user to connect the dots with the temporary marking device, creating a border around the inside perimeter;
c) Instructing the user to draw with the temporary marking device one or more lines within the border which create a section or sections within the border;
d) Instructing the user to choose one of a plurality of predetermined patterns, and to draw with a permanent marking device the chosen pattern within a chosen section defined within the border;
e) Instructing the user to make each stroke deliberate and intentional;
f) Instructing the user to choose another of the plurality of predetermined patterns, and to draw the other chosen pattern within another chosen section;
g) Reminding the user to watch the tile evolve;
h) Alerting the user that the patterns are all accomplished by a series of repetitive strokes, intended to deliberately capture the user's attention;
i) Alerting the user that the engagement of the hand and eye, in combination with the effect of the repetitive motions, enables a shift of focus and perspective, and relaxation;
j) Instructing the user to shade different areas of the tile using a pencil or other temporary marking device;
k) Instructing the user to blend the shading by rubbing with a fingertip;
l) Instructing the user to sign the tile with the permanent marking device;
m) Instructing the user to view and appreciate the new patterns and lines created that may not have been planned; and
n) Instructing a user to document a back side of the tile.

Does that really deserve a patent? Thankfully, it appears that the folks in the patent office aren't so sure it deserves a patent either. Looking through the transaction history, you see that patent examiners have rejected it eight times, with four of those being "final" rejections (and, no, the word "final" doesn't mean what it means in the rest of the world when it comes from the Patent Office where no rejection is ever final -- you can just keep trying). Hopefully this continues, but really, the amount of effort that's been put into "intellectual property" here seems to go way beyond what makes sense, and hardly seems to fit with the "zen" theme. Sure, a trademark could make sense if you're going to build a brand around the name (though, a common law trademark probably would have been just as effective), but a patent? Seriously?

Filed Under: intellectual property, patents, trademark, zen
Companies: zentangle