News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by supergreg on Sunday July 17, 2016 @10:34AM (#12110284)
Interesting this was patentable, it's just applying a known concept (a shape that cuts wind resistance) to ships.
Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by jws on Sunday July 17, 2016 @10:56AM (#12110363)
Boat hulls and decks have specific laws which make them patentable.

In 1988 Florida tried to make a law protecting boat hull designs and was shot down by the US Supreme Court. Legislators got involved and so part of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act includes protection of hull designs.

The rationale is: As a boat maker you have experts do a lot of very expensive work with thinking, simulation, real world modeling, building and testing full sized prototypes sweating all the little fiddly details. You finally stumble upon a good hull for some market. Then you spend dump truck loads of marketing money to convince people that it is a good hull for their boating needs. Success! So some clown then borrows one of the boats, makes a mold, and starts selling them cheaper with no R&D expenses and customers flock to him because they can tell its "just like" your boat.

Fun legal/programmer note: The law had to be fixed in 2009 because some of aforesaid clowns figured out that "hull" was defined to be the hull and the deck, so they were making molds, copying the hull and changing an irrelevant detail on the deck and counting as a different design. The 2009 law splits hull and deck, fixes a bunch of AND and OR logic, and closes that bug report on the law.

Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by 1gn1t10n on Sunday July 17, 2016 @02:56PM (#12111257)
It doesn't cease to amaze me how stupid IP laws can get. Better said, how much power money can buy you. As the parent is saying, this is nothing new. See here [1] how F1 cars have adapted to reduce drag. I simply cannot see how this is patentable given the prior art.

[1]http://www.caranddriverthef1.com/formula1/blogs/angelesf1/ae... (ES, but look at the pictures)

Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by mc32 on Sunday July 17, 2016 @11:43AM (#12110497)
So that piques my curiosity, why don't car manufacturers go the same route?

Apparently in some parts of the world some new car MFGs copy the look and feel of more expensive cars and other than complain a bit, the other manufacturers don't seem to enter into litigation with each other over design much --given the very similar designs some models have.

Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by Zak on Sunday July 17, 2016 @02:02PM (#12111030)
Probably because car manufacturers haven't lobbied the relevant governments successfully. I suspect in many cases, the companies doing the copying are local and therefore have more influence over the relevant government than the foreign company that originated the design.

We also see a lot of cases where the copying isn't really copying. The first generation of Lexus IS300, for example was a compact rear wheel drive luxury sedan with an inline six engine and sporty handling. Most car people reading that description would immediately think "BMW 3-series", and that was, of course the best-known entry in market the IS300 was intended for. It's hardly a clone though; no component was directly copied from BMW, the styling was clearly not intended to be mistaken for a BMW product, the engine was already used in other Toyota products, etc....

Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by nradov on Monday July 18, 2016 @12:13AM (#12113194)
The blatant car design copying is pretty much only done in China, and happens with tacit government approval. So lobbying and litigation are unlikely to be very effective there.
Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by Animats on Sunday July 17, 2016 @04:34PM (#12111693)
"Why don't car manufacturers go the same route?"

They've tried and failed. The third-party auto parts industry fights back, and has consumer backing.

Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by jloughry on Sunday July 17, 2016 @03:03PM (#12111291)
You just made my day with that comment. Just thinking about applying static analysis to the law makes me happy.
Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by JoeAltmaier on Sunday July 17, 2016 @10:40AM (#12110304)
That's what patents are all about.
Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by 1gn1t10n on Sunday July 17, 2016 @03:01PM (#12111285)
Normally it is not patentable if it's obvious to a person skilled in the topic, if there is prior art, or if there is no business application. I would say this fails two out of three.
Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by JoeAltmaier on Sunday July 17, 2016 @06:28PM (#12112188)
Assuming the patent is simply "curved superstructure" and not "superstructure designed to minimize a certain function of wind shear forces over a variety of angles vs a vector parallel to the direction of travel". That's not a trivial problem; its not clear anybody else has ever done it this particular way; and it has a clear business application (minimizing fuel costs for maritime transport). Sounds like a home run to me!
Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by ptha on Monday July 18, 2016 @08:41AM (#12114695)
The last line of the article was quite interesting: President Katsuhiko Ochi continues to inspire employees to make new designs and hull forms that cannot be copied by other companies.
Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by vlehto on Sunday July 17, 2016 @10:45AM (#12110328)
Hopefully it's not enforceable.
Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by JBReefer on Sunday July 17, 2016 @11:12AM (#12110412)
Not everything is software
Re:Innovative container ship features hemispherical bow by vlehto on Monday July 18, 2016 @01:32AM (#12113372)
I don't understand?