Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
Actually, he is not that far off. FIRST does lay claim to most (not all) things created in association with the competition. Notice that I said "competition," not "robots." The distinction is important. FIRST is taking an ever-stronger stance regarding the protection of what they consider to be their intellectual property associated with the development and implementation of the competitions.
|
I don't think that David was attempting to convey any such distinction—"anything...during or in relation to the program" sounds like it would apply to much more than just FIRST's role in designing the game and sanctioning the tournament. If David was speaking broadly about FIRST-related inventions and designs, and specifically including those not originating within FIRST itself, then a "slam dunk" is exactly how I would characterize it. FIRST obviously has no general claim to a team's scouting method, or gripper design, or strategic technique, even if it was "designed during or in relation to the program".
Incidentally, in these situations, what sort of intellectual property rights are being asserted by FIRST? What exactly is FIRST protecting, and what infringement are they protecting against? Copyright and trademark are givens, but not especially useful. Patent is not practical. So what's left? Industrial design protection for the blue and red colour scheme?
Tangentially, does anyone remember the old Canada FIRST Robotic Games? There was a bit of an incident with them, a few years ago, because they were using the FIRST name in a manner that definitely caused confusion, and arguably disrepute. But that was a trademark thing first and foremost, and they folded for other reasons as well.... (They were not affiliated with the FIRST Robotics Canada organization.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
And I would not be too hasty about minimizing their chances to have their position stand up in court. Although I would never hope that it actually gets to the point of a full lawsuit to have it proven, there is an awful lot of case history and contract law that would make any litigation anything but a slam dunk (for either side).
|
If we're talking about FIRST's own internal activities, tournament procedures and game design techniques, then there might be something worth protecting, and some legitimate claim to back it up. But I'm surprised that contract law would enter into it—unless a FIRST contractor was violating some aspect of their agreement in the process.