Houdini was an inventor, but didn't want anybody to know
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
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.