Ready? Set! Debate!

Hello you lovely reader!

It’s been another productive week for me and I hope your week shared the same productive characteristics. But It wouldn’t have been such a great week without everything that happened, would it now?

So let me start from the beninging (yes, I am aware that I misspelt this word, but that’s the way I like it). All starts in my small 2m by 5m room with a teapot and cup by my side and an array of tabs open in the browser on my laptop. Because as with every proper design, everything starts with a bit of research. And yes, even when you one day come up with a brilliant idea just by rolling out of the bed, it still prompts you to check if someone else may have had that idea before, or check the availability of the materials and technology for production of this idea. I think that as designers we always get a bit of research for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But coming back to my tabs, you might be wondering what this research was all for. Well, don’t let me keep you waiting! This was part of my preparation for this week’s “Great PDT Debate”.

The debate was happening as a part of my Contemporary Design Culture module and required a two person team for each side of the chosen debate topic. My and my teammate’s topic of choice was “If a design can serve humanity, it should not be patentable”. I chose to be in opposition to that statement. Why? Well let me briefly explain my reasoning to you in as close as possible form to what I actually did in the debate.

Soo good morning ladies and gentlemen. I'm Maria and my debate partner was Elnathan and we wanted to argue that design that serves humanity should be patented.

First of all we would like to focus on the fact that each and every field of design is essentially created to serve humanity. From the medical field with stents, lenses and prosthetic inserts through technology with headphones, tablets and robotics, ending on knives, blankets and other everyday use objects. Many designers create for others, to bring functionality, to evoke emotion, to make humans exist in this world in a new and improved way! All is created to serve us - humanity, and it all has a purpose.

With that outlook on design we can clearly recognise that all of the patented improvements and technologies are in fact design that serves humanity. Yes, even when it is a robotic arm working in an automotive industry, it serves a purpose of reducing the possibilities of additional strain on human workers. It serves.

Taking this definition of humanity serving design into consideration one could argue that this type of design should not be patentable. But we present you an alternative perspective to this statement.

Yes, patents create limitations for other users. But by this they allow the initial patent filer to polish and perfect their product through the time that the patent has its legal binding.

Patents also aren't filed with imperfect designs. Due to the amount of documents required for obtaining a patent, a company or person filing for industrial design or utility legal protection tends to apply for such with really refined designs. Due to this refinement other businesses are free to change elements of the design and use or sell it as their own without infringement on the original. So the design in a changed form can still be used by a wide share of people!

Another point regarding the factor of design patenting would be that patents are issued regionally. A patent can not be extended outside of the borders of the country it was issued in (with exceptions to patents filed within the EU that applied for a patent protection for the whole of the European Union) thus allowing for international use of the same design without breaking the patent law. The design can be therefore internationally shared because even if someone tried it won't be possible to obtain a patent in every country of the world.

Filing for a patent allows smaller companies to establish the design protection needed to create customer loyalty and it helps them make a breakthrough on the market. It protects smaller design practices from being preyed on by their bigger, already established competitors. Creating more competition that can fuel invention on the design market. Therefore filing for a patent can actually help fight market monopoly.

So yes, I do think that human serving design should actually be patented.

Well, that was my slightly rewritten for blog purposes speech on design patenting for which I dived deep into the world of legal agreements, law and order, sampling and design theft. No, I didn’t win the debate, but it was so fun to actually be able to stand in front of everyone trying to argue your point of view. And I’m proud of everyone who took part in it and prepared. And one funny thing, while conducting the research for this debate I was actually able to help my friend from Poland with translations from English to Polish for her Law school presentation which was also related to IP laws. Funny how everything is somehow connected.

But continuing on the topic I wanted to say that it was really interesting hearing others argue their different points of view on other debate topics, especially if they didn’t end only on their statements but continued into a further discussion. And yes, some of them were really controversial, like the one that the product is dead and long live digital, but that was the beauty of it, being able to see the different opinions and reasoning behind each of those points. Because even you surely have a set of your own design related beliefs that if put into a debate, you could probably defend really well. Also regarding my debate topic I encourage you to look at some videos and research some sources if you’d like to take the deep dive into design patents as well, with me.

And from the dive let’s move to the resurfacing. And let’s resurface to the magical world of theatre and production.

I was able to go and see a brilliant musical comedy “The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee” which had a set designed by one of my friends from Product Design here at UL. That made me think a bit of the time when I was younger and started building my own mini scale rotary stage (I never finished it, but what do you expect from someone who decided to make it out of wooden parts of matchsticks instead of a solid block of wood or literally any other material). And following that rediscovery I wanted to talk a bit more about the true artists the set designers are. And let’s start with Eoin, the person behind the brilliant musical theatre experience I had. With a limited budget he was able to create a set that really embodied the theme of the performance, two rows of children toy like square boxes with letters stuck on them as well as posters, judges table and a banner. Really minimal, but really matching to the whole story. A set that allowed the actors to move freely and add to it by their performance. Seemingly a background piece but integral to the whole experience. Elements of the set had been used for dancing, hiding and overall performing, working beautifully together with the scripted and unscripted moments of it all.

Another example of rather minimal set design I was able to experience and which was brought back to me was the set of The Magic Flute designed by Michael Levine. It was back in London and I feel like it is worth mentioning, because I was able to experience it during an event of technical difficulties, which would on its own deem it a different than regular experience. The original set consisted of a moving, suspended platform which wasn’t able to be used for the performance on that day. But that was the beauty of it, even without working properly the whole set in its simplicity worked. With different types of projections and live creation of the set elements during the performance it all had an enchanting feel. Bringing focus to the acting and allowing for the scenes to speak for themself. Simple but at the same time complex with fitting into the timed performance, characters constantly moving and changing on the scene. The beauty of enhancing the experience by adding little tweaks to the surroundings, so little yet so much to be done to make the viewer engaged with the visual storytelling of the performance. Beauty.

The last set designer I wanted to mention was Es Devlin who is also connected to London. Or at the very least her studio is. I was able to discover her while finishing up watching Netflix’s “Abstract: The Art of Design” and she creates not only for theatre but for many different forms of performance. Her set design skills spread from museums, through concerts, to even fashion shows, allowing them all to speak and highlighting the elements that need to be highlighted by the, whether it is the one performer, a group of models walking one after the other or simply just a room. It all has a space to shine through her work on the surrounding elements. It was visible that while creating her work she thinks not only about the receiver side of the performance equation but also of the ones who perform, making them feel a certain way by her creations. An art of bringing in the feeling.

And with that I want to leave you to think, maybe of design as an art form as well, of design as a performance, of design as a piece that serves humanity or of design as a debate or discussion.

And as per usual, the designer problem of the week: When the studio is unexpectedly closed in the morning but you got there an hour before your classes especially to get your laptop and work on assignments.

Bring out your brilliant ideas, design your surroundings.

With loads of love,

The one and only Maria K.