Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by saycheese on Sunday January 29, 2017 @02:40PM
(#13516136)
Maybe to the general public this is considered a secret, but not to professionals, who even without proof would know that based on his style of performance he had to be inventing "magic" to perform the tricks he did.
One of Houdini's best tricks was the volume of muscle he had, which was intentionally larger than any bone mass that would obstruct the removal of any constraint applied to him. He simply tense up as the constraint was applied, then relax after he was hidden from the public's all seeing eye.
As Houdini said himself, "my brain is the key that sets me free."
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by tunesmith on Sunday January 29, 2017 @04:30PM
(#13516812)
Not that I know much about horses, but I took a western horseriding class as a kid and they taught me that horses do the same thing when you saddle them - expand their bellies so you can't tighten the saddles too much. The instructor would give them a healthy slap in the ribcage to make them relax and then cinch it up.
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by OV-104 on Sunday January 29, 2017 @04:14PM
(#13516706)
> One of Houdini's best tricks was the volume of muscle he had, which was intentionally larger than any bone mass that would obstruct the removal of any constraint applied to him. He simply tense up as the constraint was applied, then relax after he was hidden from the public's all seeing eye.
Super interesting. Was his muscle volume from working out and special training or more so just genetics?
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by saycheese on Sunday January 29, 2017 @04:46PM
(#13516895)
It was well known he did this, though I've never seen any specific ways he set out to accomplish this. My guess is it wasn't intentional to start, but something he noticed and refined over the years via practice; Harry himself disclosed very little about how he practiced, but he was known to practice all the time.
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by LukeShu on Sunday January 29, 2017 @11:17PM
(#13518600)
The 3rd-to-last and 2nd-to-last paragraphs of the section do seem to suggest some hubris; not seeking medical attention despite constant pain and fever, ignoring medical advice that he needed immediate surgery and continuing to perform.
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by libertymcateer on Sunday January 29, 2017 @11:25PM
(#13518648)
The interpretation of intellectual property law in this is completely wrong.
* Patents must have disclosure because the trade-off of monopoly rights is that you make your invention publicly available and further the arts and sciences.
* Copyright doesn't cover functional elements - it didn't then, and it doesn't now.
* He simply kept things secret - we'd call them trade secrets today.
The description of intellectual property in this article is very misleading. The Smithsonian should do better than this.
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by wazoox on Sunday January 29, 2017 @05:10PM
(#13517047)
Houdini's name is inspired by Robert-Houdin, who was himself a great inventor. Back in the 1870, his electric chime that allowed people at the gate to ring a bell far away in his home across the garden was considered magic; ditto the "treasure chest" that stuck to the ground thanks to a big electromagnet.
His book "Comment on devient sorcier" ("How to be a sorcerer") explains many of his tricks in detail.
Some are incredibly difficult though... to the point I wonder if he actually gives the real explanation :)
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by todd8 on Sunday January 29, 2017 @02:50PM
(#13516183)
Houdini performed at the Paramount theater in downtown Austin over 100 years ago. If you visit that beautifully restored theater today for any performance (I've seen Sheryl Crow and Penn and Teller there amongst others), look for a hole in the decorated ceiling on the left side in the front.
It is claimed that Houdini put it there for a levitation illusion.
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by saycheese on Sunday January 29, 2017 @03:01PM
(#13516241)
There’s some debate how the "Houdini hole"[1] in the ceiling got there: “The story that Charlie Root told me is a little different than what they say now. There is a national organization of magicians who are sure it was Harry Houdini who cut the hole in order to insert some sort of apparatus to levitate a woman. But, Charlie, who in 1971 was one of the only living people who had been in the theater during its glory days, told me it was Harry Blackstone, a magician who was nowhere near as famous as Houdini. That’s all I know. I have no idea if someone has been up there to see if there was something up there.”[2]
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by bambax on Sunday January 29, 2017 @04:49PM
(#13516908)
> The technology of a patent needs to be clearly explained so that other people can avoid infringing on it.
No, it's the opposite. It needs to be clearly explained so that other people can imitate and licence it.
Sure, it's very useless for a magician who needs to keep tricks hidden, but the purpose of the patent system isn't to keep people from infringing, it's to let inventors profit from their inventions (so that they invent more).
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by Zombieball on Sunday January 29, 2017 @05:15PM
(#13517080)
As a software engineer I (quite cynically) have viewed patents as a way to protect IP and force people to pay you for using your solution.
Do people frequently use the patent system (either for software or product design) as a catalogue of tools and building blocks they can use?
I imagine it must be quite time consuming and painful to go through the licensing process. Would be cool if parents all had associated licensing terms and costs declared up front!
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by alister on Monday January 30, 2017 @01:40AM
(#13519124)
Nobody reads patents as a "catalogue of tools and building blocks they can use". Nobody reads patents even to learn.
The only time anyone reads patents--at least computing patents--is if you're preparing a new patent and need citations, or you plan to sue someone, or if someone was suing you over a patent.
Current computing patents are written in such obtuse legal language and with such generalities to make the claims as broad as possible, that they are impossible to understand unless you already understand the invention. Also, they tend to be incredibly long.
As someone who's had the displeasure of writing a couple patents and reading many more, I can't imagine a worse way to learn about a subject than reading patents. I'd rather read academic papers, study the object directly (take it apart, read the source code), talk to experts, or attend conferences.
EDIT: I'm not talking about nice mechanical patents from 200 years ago like the cotton gin. I'm talking about computing patents today.
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by Someone on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @02:37AM
(#13528539)
"Nobody reads patents even to learn."
Even if patents were great learning sources, it would still be better not to read them before they expire. Infringing on a patent you know of is more expensive than infringing on one you don't know of, so, it's better to not read patents at all so that, if it comes to that, you can confidently state that you didn't know of the patent.
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by redpieintheface on Sunday January 29, 2017 @05:37PM
(#13517196)
When patents expire all that's left is an incredibly detailed recipe for reproduction, now in the public domain.
Much of the technology you use today only exists because individuals have been incentivised to iterate on established patents with the promise of their own monopoly on success.
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by czbond on Sunday January 29, 2017 @02:41PM
(#13516139)
Fascinating article - I focused my magic learning as an escape artist magician at 13. I remember going down long dark water slides in handcuffs trying to "pick them" before I reached the bottom.
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by ThinkingGuy on Sunday January 29, 2017 @07:34PM
(#13517764)
Reading a biography of Houdini a few years ago, I realized how much of his magic was based on what we would today call "hacking." For example: he studied the various handcuff and lockmakers' pruducts, and would then determine ahead of time which models were used by a particular police department. He then would know exactly what kind master keys to hide on (or in) his body in order to escape from any jail cell.
Re:Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
by sparky_z on Sunday January 29, 2017 @03:00PM
(#13516239)
I realize you're trying to make a political point, but the article isn't wrong.
Obviously both are legitimate considerations, but the quoted reason is why the patent system isn't useful for magic tricks. If you were just worried about public benefit, you could have the UPO seal the contents of such patents until after expiration. That clearly wouldn't work for exactly the reason the article gives.
One of Houdini's best tricks was the volume of muscle he had, which was intentionally larger than any bone mass that would obstruct the removal of any constraint applied to him. He simply tense up as the constraint was applied, then relax after he was hidden from the public's all seeing eye.
As Houdini said himself, "my brain is the key that sets me free."
Super interesting. Was his muscle volume from working out and special training or more so just genetics?
Houdini's famed strength indirectly also lead to his death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Houdini#Death
* Patents must have disclosure because the trade-off of monopoly rights is that you make your invention publicly available and further the arts and sciences.
* Copyright doesn't cover functional elements - it didn't then, and it doesn't now.
* He simply kept things secret - we'd call them trade secrets today.
The description of intellectual property in this article is very misleading. The Smithsonian should do better than this.
His book "Comment on devient sorcier" ("How to be a sorcerer") explains many of his tricks in detail.
Some are incredibly difficult though... to the point I wonder if he actually gives the real explanation :)
[1] Photo of "Houdini Hole" http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iiUFWI6Wdlo/VM52B-US1lI/AAAAAAAAbk...
[2] http://www.austinmonthly.com/Austin-Amplified/September-2015...
No, it's the opposite. It needs to be clearly explained so that other people can imitate and licence it.
Sure, it's very useless for a magician who needs to keep tricks hidden, but the purpose of the patent system isn't to keep people from infringing, it's to let inventors profit from their inventions (so that they invent more).
Do people frequently use the patent system (either for software or product design) as a catalogue of tools and building blocks they can use?
I imagine it must be quite time consuming and painful to go through the licensing process. Would be cool if parents all had associated licensing terms and costs declared up front!
The only time anyone reads patents--at least computing patents--is if you're preparing a new patent and need citations, or you plan to sue someone, or if someone was suing you over a patent.
Current computing patents are written in such obtuse legal language and with such generalities to make the claims as broad as possible, that they are impossible to understand unless you already understand the invention. Also, they tend to be incredibly long.
As someone who's had the displeasure of writing a couple patents and reading many more, I can't imagine a worse way to learn about a subject than reading patents. I'd rather read academic papers, study the object directly (take it apart, read the source code), talk to experts, or attend conferences.
EDIT: I'm not talking about nice mechanical patents from 200 years ago like the cotton gin. I'm talking about computing patents today.
Even if patents were great learning sources, it would still be better not to read them before they expire. Infringing on a patent you know of is more expensive than infringing on one you don't know of, so, it's better to not read patents at all so that, if it comes to that, you can confidently state that you didn't know of the patent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisoned_with_the_Pharaohs
So you post it on here?! ;) (Kidding, this is neat.)
No. It needs to be clearly explained so that people can benefit from actually using the invention once the patent expires.
Obviously both are legitimate considerations, but the quoted reason is why the patent system isn't useful for magic tricks. If you were just worried about public benefit, you could have the UPO seal the contents of such patents until after expiration. That clearly wouldn't work for exactly the reason the article gives.