FIRST's patents

[Imadapocalypse]

wait so do these patents mean that there will be no other robotics competitions other than FIRST? meaning other organizations like vex may be disbanded?

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Imadapocalypse

wait so do these patents mean that there will be no other robotics competitions other than FIRST? meaning other organizations like vex may be disbanded?

It's going to come down (as Jason suggests) to another competition meeting ALL the points in the patent, not just one or two. It's not the sort of patent that anyone is going to make money from, and might not even be enforceable. I doubt it threatens other robotics competitions, especially those that don't use the exact scoring methodology outlined in points 5 & 6. Since not even FIRST uses this scoring, I'm not sure what the point of this patent is.

Could you imagine the outrage in the world of FIRST teams and sponsors if FIRST tried to enforce this patent broadly on all youth robotics competitions? I don't think it would be pretty.

Sometimes patents are all about being able to brag that your technology is patented, and not about trying to protect the patent. This may be why Kamen and company followed through on this one.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Imadapocalypse

wait so do these patents mean that there will be no other robotics competitions other than FIRST? meaning other organizations like vex may be disbanded?

No. Remember, FIRST has the option to "forget" to enforce any patent they hold. Also, this was filed BEFORE FVC, and therefore VRC (which was a continuation of the direction FVC was going when it was changed into FTC) could be a violation of the patent. However, if FIRST decides to go after VRC, they will probably get every single participant in VRC and half of the FRC community (the other half either not caring or in VRC) angry, and lose many students and mentors because of the loss of face.

Also, remember that the patent protection, for practical purposes, doesn't apply if money isn't being made. Why? Well, who'd be stupid enough to sue for patent violation when there isn't any money to be made off of it? If VRC itself isn't making money, then there is no point. If they are, then there may be, but then it's bye-bye to Victors and Spikes being provided--and until there's another way to control the compressor, that's a bad idea.

[Imadapocalypse]

alright then
as long as nothing happens to vex or any other robotics competition im think im good. the reason why it had me worked up is because in our state there is no FRC. VRC is a big part of robotics for middle school students to want to enter into FRC as well as high school students to get interested in robotics. If VRC shut down support for robotics in our state would decline since the only events left will be FRC and FLL.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Imadapocalypse

wait so do these patents mean that there will be no other robotics competitions other than FIRST? meaning other organizations like vex may be disbanded?

I'm no lawyer but I fail to see how FIRST could patent something that numerous other companies/organizations have been doing for years, sue, and expect it to hold up in court.

My first reaction to hearing that FIRST is trying to patent robotics competitions is that they're like a playground bully-trying to steal the ball and take it home with them.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Cory

I'm no lawyer but I fail to see how FIRST could patent something that numerous other companies/organizations have been doing for years, sue, and expect it to hold up in court.

My first reaction to hearing that FIRST is trying to patent robotics competitions is that they're like a playground bully-trying to steal the ball and take it home with them.

If you read the actual patent, you'll notice that this simply isn't the case. It isn't something that anyone else has ever really done, and something that is unlikely to be ever done again.(as posted previously)

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Cory

My first reaction to hearing that FIRST is trying to patent robotics competitions is that they're like a playground bully-trying to steal the ball and take it home with them.

Where are you hearing that FIRST is trying to patent robotics competitions? The patent is about scoring and ranking algorithms.

United States Patent 7,507,169
...so that the students, by engaging in the contest, are provided with an experience involving science and technology under processes as recited herein that motivate cooperation in the midst of competition for a highest final score on the playing field.

[Bharat Nain]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Where are you hearing that FIRST is trying to patent robotics competitions? The patent is about scoring and ranking algorithms.

You're right. FIRST is only trying to patent something "that the students, by engaging in the contest, are provided with an experience involving science and technology under processes as recited herein that motivate cooperation in the midst of competition for a highest final score on the playing field. "

I wonder how a "robotics competition" would be without the above mentioned elements.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Bharat Nain

You're right. FIRST is only trying to patent something "that the students, by engaging in the contest, are provided with an experience involving science and technology under processes as recited herein that motivate cooperation in the midst of competition for a highest final score on the playing field. "

I wonder how a "robotics competition" would be without the above mentioned elements.

Most non-FIRST robotics competitions I know of lack the "coopertition" element, which is the element being patented.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Where are you hearing that FIRST is trying to patent robotics competitions? The patent is about scoring and ranking algorithms.

Yeah and any competition using a similar format would be in "violation" of their patent. Like VEX.

[Paul Copioli]

All,

I deal with patents all the time in my real job and, in my opinion, is easy to get around. The key point is that the first claim is the independent claim and if you do not violate that claim, then the rest doesn't matter (unless there are more independent claims). In claim 1 there are 7 parts. Every one of those parts must be satisfied in order to violate claim 1 as they are not independent claims themselves.

Part 5 of the claim is the meat and potatoes where they talk about adding to the raw score of the winning alliance. FIRST (and VEX) don't do that anymore. The rank is based on wins and losses. In addition, all VEX has to do is not have the ranking part of the score determined by the losers score at all and they are totally around the patent.

This was a waste of FIRST (and in turn, team) money. My company has a committee that determines if a patent makes good business sense. This one, in my professional opnion, does not.

[Stephen Kowski]

Originally Posted by Cory

Yeah and any competition using a similar format would be in "violation" of their patent. Like VEX.

Doubtful VEX is going to be in violation of anything like that in the near future, I think Innovation FIRST has firmed themselves defensively for such a case. If you are still worried read these:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080263628
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080269949

[marccenter]

My two cents,
I think the filing is primarily defensive in nature. It can help prevent others from using FIRST generated ideas in the patent against it in court. It also adds one patent to Dean's collection. I don't know his total but I believe Edison's is over 1000. My list numbers 5 and two in process = 7.

[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. Further, I Personally, think this is another "imaginary property" type patent, such as the one filed recently by an entertainment company where you interact with the game by throwing the display, or many of the other process patents check this link out
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html
for some examples.

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"

Hrmm, I wonder if the method of posting a message on a forum has been patented yet...

[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.