FIRST's patents

[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.

[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.

[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.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

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.

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.

I agree that this patent was probably pursued more to make a point than with any real expectation of enforcing the claim (to whit: all of Dean's discussions about suing others for "non-infringement")**. But I would not get too worried about FIRST's cost to pursue the filing. The filing itself is not that expensive. Typically, the real costs are usually associated with the gazillion hours of patent attorney time to prepare the filing. In this particular case, I would be willing to speculate that those hours were either directly provided pro bono or provided by DEKA donating the services of their own patent attorney. So, I am not concerned about any of our registration fees going for that purpose.

-dave

** there is also an interesting little twist that I just realized that virtually ensures that FIRST would never even attempt to enforce this patent. But that is for another discussion.

.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by dlavery

there is also an interesting little twist that I just realized that virtually ensures that FIRST would never even attempt to enforce this patent. But that is for another discussion.

Of course, even when he is serious...Lavery is still messing with our heads.

[Carol]

I did a quick report on Dean's patents in the US, which is attached. (Disclaimer - this was a quick search on all patents and applications by "Dean Kamen" - if he used a variation on that name it would not have been retrieved. Other Dean Kamens would also be included but it doesn't look like there are any others!) (And I haven't checked this list for accuracy)

There are 107 US patents and 81 published applications. The ones that start with a year, such as US20070252683, are applications which may or may not become issued patents. They are divided into 48 families which are all related by priority applications in some manner. (Either by an application being split into several different patents, or a new application being submitted based on priority matter in the original. I'm trying not to bore you here with details).

Take for example the second family listed, which is obviously the Segway. The issued patents are listed first, with applications next. Most of the applications listed in this family have probably all issued into patents already, except for some of the recent ones. (Applications are published 18 months after being filed). There are several families at the end of the report that have not (yet) become issued patents.

It is interesting to look at the pattern of research. He started out in the medical field, added work on the engines and distillers, then moved to the Segway type of inventions. Doesn't look like the bionic arm work has published yet, but I'm willing to bet that they have been filed.

Pretty impressive list. Edison did have 1100+ US patents, but patenting was very different then.

[johnr]

I guess this means that FiM can't break off and become a rogue entity without changing a few things. I hope wink+smile=joke,cause that is what i meant.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by johnr

I guess this means that FiM can't break off and become a rogue entity without changing a few things. I hope wink+smile=joke,cause that is what i meant.

You can't, you rogues are stuck with the rest of us.