Saturday, February 21, 2009

Can designers patent signature formal cues?

I was browsing the latest issue of MT (Mar 2009). After the usual stops at ‘angus’, ‘trend’, ‘arthur’ and ‘frank’ I came across an article on the all new hybrid from Honda – the 2009 FCX Clarity. Whilst the article gives a good overview of this cost conscious offering from Honda, I quickly got interested in the form of this new hybrid. I have always wondered why most hybrids or electrics are styled the way they are – I mean, funkier. Because I doubt if these funkier forms in anyway communicate the underpinning technology to the consumer. And even if it does, is the consumer upbeat about it!? Of course, there are companies (including, Honda) that have hybrid offerings which simply look like the regular IC engine cars. I quickly got to the MT website to see pictures of the FCX Clarity. As I was browsing the photo gallery I saw a feature on the A- pillar that caught my attention. Right where the A-pillar surfaces meet the fender, there is a feature which reminds you of the bas-relief like feature on the ’08 CTS at the same spot. I remember MT quoting the CTS designer way back then - "My head still has the dents in it from the clubbing I got from the manufacturing guys," laughs exterior designer John Manoogian. "They told me it would defy the laws of physics to try and stamp that thing." Indeed that was a brave stand for a designer, especially in GM.



Though at a concept level the feature in FCX Clarity resembles the one in CTS, the surface treatment in the two cars is recognizably different. FCX has more crown (curvature) to the surfaces on A-pillar and the fender. It does not have the ornamentation as you see in CTS. The overall form and stance of these two cars are very different as are there perceived market spaces.
Nevertheless, my point is if any credit should be given to the designer who innovate a form character?! Is it possible to file patents for
freeform surface shapes?

Any thoughts…