[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Justin Stiltner

I have to agree with Paul, I think this patent was a waste, if you want to share something, publish it with one of the many licenses available for free. Surely this would have cost less than the patent process.

Those licences only work when they've either been expressly agreed upon (i.e. contracts), or if they are enforceable under copyright law. Copyright law protects artistic works—so you could protect the text of the rulebook, but not the ideas. Contract law can protect just about anything—but who would agree to the contract?

Originally Posted by Justin Stiltner

Further, If a competition wanted to use this equation, if they simply said that the opponents score was factored in, could fist force the other competition to divulge its equation? Or could you conceal it under the guise of a "trade secret"

It's only a trade secret if it's secret. Would you want to participate in a competition that does not divulge its ranking system? Wouldn't you wonder if the rankings had been adjusted to favour a certain team?


By the way, here are all of the FRC scoring algorithms released after the application date on the patent:

Originally Posted by FRC 2003 Rules

Both teams in the losing alliance get their own alliance score in Qualifying Points (QP’s). Both teams in the winning alliance get their own score plus twice the losing alliance’s score in QP's. A tie awards the total of the match points to both alliances in QP's.

Originally Posted by FRC 2004–2005 Rules

All [four in 2004/six in 2005] teams will receive a number of Ranking Points equal to the Match Score of the losing alliance or their alliance score in the case of a tie.

Originally Posted by FRC 2006 Rules

The winning alliance teams will receive a number of Ranking Points equal to the un-penalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the winning or losing alliance, whichever un-penalized score is lower.
The losing alliance teams will receive a number of Ranking Points equal to their final score (with any assessed penalties).
In the case of a tie, all six alliance teams will receive a number of Ranking Points equal to their alliance score (with any assessed penalties).

Originally Posted by FRC 2007–2009 Rules

All teams on the winning ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to the unpenalized score (the score without any assessed penalties) of the losing ALLIANCE.
All teams on the losing ALLIANCE will receive a number of ranking points equal to their final score (with any assessed penalties).
In the case of a tie, all participating teams will receive a number of ranking points equal to their ALLIANCE score (with any assessed penalties).

Notice that none of these games even make use of the patented method of scoring (add the loser's score to the winner's score), and only 2003 uses the previously-claimed method (add twice the loser's score to the winner's score). That means that they were never protected by this patent (and in fairness, that was probably understood by Dean and FIRST).

Any because existing FIRST scoring algorithms have already been disclosed to the public, they're not patentable. Dean can't go back now and get a patent with more broad terms (so as to cover all games incorporating some form of ranking based on the losing alliance's score, i.e. 2000, 2002–2009). Basically, any previous FRC scoring algorithm is perpetually fair game for non-FIRST robotics competitions, despite this patent. In any case, it predates the IFI-FIRST disputes, and wasn't created as a direct attack upon VRC.


I hypothesize that the two reasons this patent exists are to draw attention to the process behind developing an invention, and to be able to claim in promotional materials that FIRST has a patented method of organizing robotics competitions (a stretch). I find it hard to believe that those outcomes were worth the price of the patent—because you could always point to the iBot or the Segway if you wanted examples of patented technology.