Re: Piecepack Pyramids

["dalek_no3" <dalek_no3@...>]

--- In piecepack@y..., Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@l...> wrote:
> 1. Whatever his public position ("Piecepack Pyramids are all 
supposed
>    to be the same color.  Would such pyramids infringe on our 
patent?
>    It's debatable."), Andy has told me in private email that he does
>    not believe piecepack pyramids infringe on his patent ("You 
know, I
>    hadn't actually realized that [all piecepack pyramids are the 
same
>    colour] before.... it sounds like they actually are different
>    enough to not infringe...  I'll have to correct my essay.")

Infringement must be commercially harmful.  Seeing as Andy freely 
distributes instructions on how to make your own Icehouse pieces 
(commonly referred to as "Piecenicking") "commercially harmful" would 
be a difficult thing to show in court.  Then again, I don't really 
see Andy Looney taking anyone to court in the near or distant future.

> 2. The Patent Office hands patents out like candy, not, as Andy 
would
>    have it, "merit badges".  (If you doubt this, consider the 
infamous
>    Amazon.com "one-click" patent.)  I sincerely doubt whether Andy's
>    patent would hold up in court.  Stackable, hollow coloured 
pyramids
>    were used in the game Pyramidis as early as 1988 [sic; the page
>    lists the date for Pyramidis as 1998 at the top, but mentions an
>    earlier edition from 1988 lower down]:

Not quite candy.  It does take a certain level of creative phrasing 
to get something patented.  I see this as a great dichotomy in the 
legal structure of the United States.  The US Patent Office deals in 
patent proposals, often stated in the most convoluted of legalese, 
written by seasoned lawyers.  Those in charge of handing out patents, 
however, are not lawyers themselves.

The issue of the "one click" patent is not quite a good example.  
Amazon clearly did not invent "one click" shopping.  Andy Looney 
quite clearly did invent Icehouse: The Martian Chess Set.  Common 
sense tells me that the Icehouse patent is specific enough that 1) 
people weren't already infringing on it when it was issued, and 2) no 
one is likely to accidentally infringe upon it.

As for Pyramidis, it's not really an issue.  Pyramidis did use 
stackable plastic pyramids, it's true, but their physical dimensions 
make them impossible to use as Icehouse pieces in most games, 
especially those requiring pieces to lay on their sides or stack 
completely.

>      Doesn't sound "new, useful, and non-obvious" to me.

Questions: 
1) Do you dispute the creativity of Icehouse?
2) Do you dispute that Andy Looney created Icehouse?
3) Do you really think that Andy Looney is going to be taking anyone 
to court any time in the near (or even distant) future?
4) Considering the cost in producing Icehouse, do you think that the 
price is unreasonable?  There's a difference between good stewardship 
and greed.  Manufacturing a product and selling it for a loss is just 
plain bad stewardship.
5) If you answered "no" to those questions, what is the debate?