Quote:
Originally Posted by XaulZan11
I'm no where near a legal expert, so why the patent?
I recall a previous thread where a team was looking to patent something related to their robot (some wheel, I think) and the general consensus was that it wasn't worth it.
|
If the method was the nonadrive I think the patent is invalid anyway. They can grant you a patent for something but for many methods they grant patents and find out later on that it was invalid to begin with. Which if it is the nonadrive I believe it is the case.
For a patent to be valid must be new, non-obvious, and useful or industrially applicable. Useful? I think so. Industrially applicable? Again I'd say yes. Non-obvious? Maybe. New? I don't think so. I have seen this method multiple times over the years in CAD. It must have been new or obvious to who ever thought up the SpamThingAcon years ago (
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...spamthingacon). 343's omni-drive is another drive system to look at when considering new/non-obvious. The new and non-obvious I am not sure I buy.
Maybe an exercise in the patent process, which is great. Maybe it's a neat way to display a patent firm's sponsorship. I wouldn't be especially worried about using the design in the FIRST arena. I probably wouldn't go selling these types of systems, not for fear of violating a patent, but financially you could be locked up for years in court even if you are right and the patent is indeed invalid.
Your team was probably correct, unless it was a new, non-obvious wheel I'd think the patent wasn't worth it.