Inspired by Technokats?

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

nope. Under most circumstances you can only file and infringement case if someone is making money off your patent.

So basically, IFI couldn't design a system based off of it and sell it to teams, only AndyMark could, presumably if they had permission from their Delphi, right?

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Originally Posted by Adam Richards

So basically, IFI couldn't design a system based off of it and sell it to teams, only AndyMark could, presumably if they had permission from their Delphi, right?

As far as I know, you're correct. But what do you mean by their Delphi? Is the patent under Delphi or is AndyMark part of Delphi?

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by Budda648

As far as I know, you're correct. But what do you mean by their Delphi? Is the patent under Delphi or is AndyMark part of Delphi?

Oops, I rephrased a part of it and left "their" in it. The patent is under Delphi Corporation. AndyMark is a seperate company unless Delphi has just bought out AndyMark to start producing consumer robotic parts for 6 months out of the year...

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Adam Richards

So basically, IFI couldn't design a system based off of it and sell it to teams, only AndyMark could, presumably if they had permission from their Delphi, right?

From a legalistic point of view, AndyMark is even less likely than IFI to offer a product based on Andy's patent. Why, you ask?

Andy is the inventor, but Delphi owns the patent. Andy works for Delphi. As a Delphi employee, Andy has to stay away from conflicts of interest; this means he can't be involved in commercial deals with suppliers, customers, or competitors of Delphi. Clearly Delphi would have to view any firm that markets a product based on their patented idea as a (potential) competitor.

So, to sell a product based on Andy's invention, (1) AndyMark would have to get permission from Delphi to used the patented idea, and (2) Andy himself would need an exception to the restriction on conflicts of interest. On the other hand, IFI has no employees who also work for Delphi, so they would only need to get permission to use the patented idea.

All that aside, we're talking about Delphi here -- the company that has been an extremely strong supporter of FIRST for as long as any of us can remember. I personally don't think Delphi would have a problem with FIRST teams using Andy's invention. But they might have a issue with anyone except Delphi making money off it.

(disclaimer: I certainly cannot speak for Delphi.)

<edit> Re: the topic line of this thread. Of course I'm inspired by the Technokats. Isn't everyone? </edit>

[Andy Baker]

This is a pretty cool design by the CMU folks. Not only is the ball drive happening, but also reverse pendulum balancing. Kudos to them for pulling this off.

As for the TechnoKats' "ball drive" robot, here is the situation in a nutshell:

This is MAINLY a Mark Koors design. I was "along for the ride" on this patent, and gave Mark some help, having some input. So, while Richard's post above focuses on "Andy's design", I would call it "Mark's design". Mark was the main designer.

We created the design during the fall of 2002 and presented it to Delphi management (We both still work for Delphi, and moonlight as AndyMark co-owners). Delphi management immediately had us file for a patent, as Delphi's property (very rightfully so). During the 2003 build season, the team created a nifty tank drive, and Mark made a 2nd iteration Ball Drive. Both robots were shipped to the competitions (and caused the 3rd rule created by FIRST that countered something that the TechnoKats developed).

One of the highlights of the 2003 year was watching Mark go hoarse, explaining how the Ball Drive worked while demonstrating it all day long in the pits at the Astro Dome in Houston.

As I've said before, this patent is to protect Delphi's intellectual property rights. Of course, FIRST teams can create something like this, as Greg mentioned, since they are not making any money off of it. From my experience, this ball drive is not a good FIRST-competition drive base, as it has less mobility than a holonimic or swerve drive and even less traction than a tank drive robot. But... it is cool, which inspires.

On a side note... the next time you see Greg McCoy (TechnoKat alumni and current Purdue Student & Boilermaker Regional co-chair), ask him to tell you the story about how he convinced the team to not use this drive base in the 2003 FIRST competitions. He and another engineer essentially won a shouting arguement against Mark and I in front of the whole team, and he was only 15.

Rambled enough,
Andy B.

[Cody Carey]

Actually, I don't see how the vacuum and the ball-drive are related at all... The "ball" on the vacuum has an axle running through it. It is actually more akin to a very wide wheel than a ball. It first started on a wheel-barrow, the inventor put it there so that the thin front wheel wouldn't dig up his yard anymore: