Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?

[Natchez]

Please allow me to preface this thread with the fact that I'm a HUGE VEX fan; I'm especially a fan of the people who make VEX such a great program. And, I'm NOT a patent attorney.

Reviewing the 2009-2010 VEX Competition, Clean Sweep, it seems the rules are consistent with FIRST's recently granted Cooperation Patent. VEX's Strength of Schedule Points is defined as,

Strength of Schedule Points (SP) – The second basis of ranking teams. Strength of Schedule points are awarded in the amount of the score of the losing alliance in a Qualifying Match.

seem to satisfy the patent's summary,

... a first participating player, team, or alliance is motivated to cooperate with a second participating player, team, or alliance by rewarding the first participating player, team, or alliance for assisting the second participating player, team, or alliance to achieve a higher score than might otherwise have been the attainable.

Since it seems logical that the common person should be able to understand if they are violating someone's intellectual property rights, I would like to pose the following question to everyone,

Do you think VEX needed to request permission from FIRST for Clean Sweep?

I have NO insider information on what agreements VEX has with FIRST, so this is simply a hypothetical question based on an actual scenario rather than a question of what VEX has done or must do; I'm sure VEX is thorough in their implementation of their competitions.

What do you think ... vote if you'd like,
Lucien

[Phil Ross]

I assume that IFI had prior knowledge of the patent situation that FIRST was going through. Out of the entire world their are only 5 other robotics competitions that have more than one robot out at a time, and 3 of them only have one on one. Since FIRST and Vex are built on similar principles I would assume that worked something out. Remember that the IP that IFI established a few years back that allows all FRC competitions to run...the IP I am speaking of is the "On, but disabled" function that FRC robots use. I'm sure they worked something out.

[JackN]

I am not a lawyer, and am in no way involved with VEX, but I do not see an infringement anywhere in here. The patent seems to be discussing the idea of Coopertition, not of any specific application. If they patented the RS method of tie breaking, then the VRC would be blatantly copying it, but based on the passage of the patent given I don't think VEX had to say anything to FIRST about using their system.

[Cory]

The patents haven't even been issued yet, have they? I thought they were just being reviewed now.

My answer is no. FIRST's patents are a joke (in my opinion) and I couldn't care less if anyone "violated" them.

At any rate, see Paul's post here. Unless a competition were to use the exact ranking algorithm that the 2003 game used, it sounds like they would not be in violation of the patent.

[dlavery]

Temporary tangent:

Originally Posted by Phil Ross

Out of the entire world their are only 5 other robotics competitions that have more than one robot out at a time, and 3 of them only have one on one.

Is there a citation somewhere for that claim? Right off the top of my head, I can think of at least eight different robotic competition programs just in the U.S. that involve simultaneous multiple robots on the field, and only one of them is 1-on-1. And I am pretty sure that number will double or triple with just a little bit of research.

This is a relevant side-bar discussion, as multiple robots competing simultaneously is a significant element of the "Coopetition" patent claim. The existence of other competitions with similar characteristics, particularly those that pre-date the patent claim, will have a bearing on just how enforceable the claim may actually be.

-dave



.

[miketwalker]

I think Cory's reference to Paul's post is correct.

However, even assuming the patent could allow FIRST to sue Vex/Innovation First, if that were to happen there would be a major problem as both FIRST and Vex could be viewed as humanitarian and volunteer driven organizations with the goal of motivating students to go to college in technical fields as well as provide some working knowledge of engineering in high school.

In a 100% hypothetical and fictitious scenario: If FIRST were to use legal measures to try to limit Vex the only people that would be hurt would be the students themselves and it would be pretty obvious that FIRST had lost it's way.

There are a handful of wonderful educational robotics programs, each with advantages and disadvantages, like BotBall, Battlebots IQ, BEST, FIRST, Vex, etc. but all with similar goals. I do worry that sometimes these groups unintentionally try to knock each other down when each one appeals to students in different ways with the same goal... to inspire students to become engineers. Lawyers have their place, but if they were used to try to demerit programs striving for the same goals as us then it would be quite ashame.

[Herodotus]

To be honest, if FIRST have tried to use it's patents to sue anyone I'd simply leave. Like Cory said I see the whole idea of the patent as nothing more than a joke.

[Chris is me]

I thought Dean make a big deal about "trying to enforce patent non-infringement", i.e. using the patents symbolically to promote the idea of coopertition.

[GaryVoshol]

IANAL, but the VEX Elevation game had the same QP/RP rules. They changed their names this year to Win Points and Strength of Schedule Points. I don't think FIRST could successfully sue for infringement in Clean Sweep if they made no claim about Elevation.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by JackN

I am not a lawyer, and am in no way involved with VEX, but I do not see an infringement anywhere in here. The patent seems to be discussing the idea of Coopertition, not of any specific application.

Sorry, thanks for playing. You cannot patent an idea. Patents are only granted for a specific application. The Coopetition patent is for the specific application of enticing teams to win while still helping their opponent to earn a high score.

The Clean Sweep game rules obviously infringe on the patent. However, I'm pretty sure the main point of this particular patent is to publicize the invention, and FIRST isn't at all likely to refuse other organizations the right to use it.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The Clean Sweep game rules obviously infringe on the patent. However, I'm pretty sure the main point of this particular patent is to publicize the invention, and FIRST isn't at all likely to refuse other organizations the right to use it.

I was under the same impression. Just like it says in the name of the organization itself, FIRST seeks to inspire... I don't think they would sue another organization that's helping to accomplish the same thing.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Sorry, thanks for playing. You cannot patent an idea. Patents are only granted for a specific application. The Coopetition patent is for the specific application of enticing teams to win while still helping their opponent to earn a high score.

The Clean Sweep game rules obviously infringe on the patent. However, I'm pretty sure the main point of this particular patent is to publicize the invention, and FIRST isn't at all likely to refuse other organizations the right to use it.

Here's where I disagree. The patent claims qualification rankings based upon adding the winning alliances score to twice the losing alliances score. It doesn't have any provisions for win/loss record in qualifying, or for solely using the losing alliance's score. I think VEX can get around the patent easily if it came down to it.

[Elgin Clock]

While i don't have the image viewer installed on this computer, I can tell by reading bits & pieces of the info that this patent is for the 2003 game.
Sure, it may incorporate a banner coopertitiion idea as well, but it seems to focus on 2003's game alone at least in terms of describing the playing field combined with the scoring methods as well.

Unless VEX (or any other robotics competition for that matter outside the realm of FIRST) decides to recreate exactly the 2003 FRC game, there shouldn't be an issue with any portions of this patent.

You have to take it as a whole, & not just focus on parts of it.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by miketwalker

There are a handful of wonderful educational robotics programs, each with advantages and disadvantages, like BotBall, Battlebots IQ, BEST, FIRST, Vex, etc. but all with similar goals. I do worry that sometimes these groups unintentionally try to knock each other down when each one appeals to students in different ways with the same goal... to inspire students to become engineers. Lawyers have their place, but if they were used to try to demerit programs striving for the same goals as us then it would be quite a shame.

Mike hit on the real meat of this entire discussion.

I get concerned when I hear anyone from a student on a rookie team all the way up to a member of the Board Of Directors talking about "competing" with the other programs. Without a doubt, there are those within FIRST, BotBall, VEX, BEST, BBIQ and MATE that are concerned about "being overtaken" by "the other guys." ** This is a horrifically inane and patently foolish viewpoint.

FIRST, BotBall, VEX, BEST, BBIQ and MATE reach a combined total of less than 7% of the high schools in the United States. 93% of the market is currently untapped. The simple reality is that competition between these programs is both counter-productive to their own goals, and totally unnecessary.

If these programs could grow at a combined average rate of 20% per year (as reference, FRC has been growing at a average of about 10% per year in recent years), it will take them at least another 15 years before they even come close to saturating the pool of schools in the U.S., let alone the world. Use a slightly more realistic (but still massively optimistic) sustained long-term growth rate of 15%, and it will be more than 20 years before we reach that point.

So for the next two decades, all these organizations that are publicly stating that they are pursuing the same goal (inspiring the next generation of engineers and scientists, and changing the common culture) can do so without ever running into each other. All of these organizations can expend ALL of their resources on the growth of their own programs, and never spend a cent on "competing with the other guys," and they will keep themselves fully occupied well through the 2020's. To fulfill their own corporate visions, every resource they have can be focused on the growth of their programs in the most cost-effective way possible.

Spending resources to go into a school where a "competing" program already exists (and therefore by definition, into a school that already gets the point of using robotics competition program to inspire students) does not accomplish that. It does nothing to increase the total number of schools in the country where these inspirational programs are available, or add to the number of schools that participate in the mission of these programs. Spending those resources to identify and incorporate the schools where the program do not yet exist is the way to reasonably and cost-effectively increase the availability of these programs to students across the country, and move toward fulfilling the vision. The even more cost-effective growth mechanism would be to leverage the existence of the other programs and the similar investments they are making, and utilize their growth as a way to magnify the efforts of this organization. The very best growth model is one where these organizations all work together to their mutual benefit, to accelerate their combined growth rate, and to reduce their own costs of identifying and recruiting school participation (can anyone say "coopetition"?).

To the original topic: is the "coopetition" patent enforceable? I don't know, and honestly I really don't care. I am much more concerned about the message sent if the organization that owns the patent were to ever TRY to enforce it. Because that would be a signal that the organization was expending resources recklessly, and had taken on a different set of values and priorities then those that attracted many of us. That would be a signal that the true meaning of "coopetition" existed solely on paper, and was not something practiced even by the organization that defined it. And that would be a very sad day.*

-dave

* to be clear: I am not saying that FIRST is anywhere near this point. But it is a signal which I will always keep in mind.

[edit] ** and to be fair, I should also note that there are also people in each of these organizations that definitely understand that competition between these programs is counter-productive, and the best thing that they can do is find ways to leverage their efforts and work together toward their common goals. I just wish they had more opportunities to speak up and let a larger portion of the community hear from them. [/edit]


.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

Here's where I disagree.

Can you be more specific about what you're disagreeing with? I can't tell whether you think patents are indeed for ideas rather than for embodiments, or whether you think the patent describes something other than encouraging teams to cooperate with their opponents, or whether you think VEX is not infringing the patent, or whether you think the patent is designed to keep others from using the invention, or whether you think FIRST intends to withhold permission for VEX to use a scheme that rewards teams for high opponent scores. The rest of your comment doesn't seem to clarify things.

The patent claims qualification rankings based upon adding the winning alliances score to twice the losing alliances score. It doesn't have any provisions for win/loss record in qualifying, or for solely using the losing alliance's score.

The claim doesn't specify the "W+2L" formula. It says "enhancing the raw score of the winning alliance by adding to the raw score of the winning alliance the raw score of the other alliance". What you said is in the description of the game used as an embodiment of the invention rather than in the basic claims. Win/loss record is not mentioned, but the losing alliance's score certainly is. See specifically claim #6 and this sentence from the detailed description:

Originally Posted by United States Patent 7,507,169

Both teams in the losing alliance get their own alliance score in Qualifying Points (QP's).