|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Did VEX need to request permission from FIRST for Clean Sweep? | |||
| Yes, sure VEX needed to ask permission |
|
6 | 11.76% |
| No permission needed |
|
45 | 88.24% |
| Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?
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. Last edited by Elgin Clock : 13-05-2009 at 12:17. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?
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.
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#3
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?
Quote:
Quote:
Also, claim 6 pertains to how to set the QPs for the losing alliance ("other alliance" is referring to the losing alliance referring to claim 5). I agree that you can't patent an idea. The claims in the patent do not explicitly cover the qualifying format used in VEX. In my limited experience working with patents, it doesn't take much to circumvent a patent. Changing a very minute detail is usual plenty enough to get around it. VEX using wins and losses and NOT adding winner's and loser's score together (as claimed in claim 5) should be way more than enough needed to win a court case, if it came down to it. This all being said, this is just an academic argument since I'd be shocked if FIRST ever tried to enforce the patent. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?
Quote:
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] . Last edited by dlavery : 14-05-2009 at 11:55. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?
Quote:
Think of the difference between the number of students who play sports on a school's teams, and the far, far greater number of students who play organized sports in leagues outside of their school system or outside of any organized league. If anything, Dave underestimated the size of the opportunities. Changing the culture (not just the schools, but the culture) has a long way to go yet. That means I/we can look forward to fun and satisfying hobbies for quite a while yet. Blake |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?
Quote:
At our school, we participate in BEST, VEX and FIRST. Each is represented by a separate group of students. Even at that, it is only 1.4% of the total population of the school. I guess we need to do a better job of spreading the word... ![]() |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?
Quote:
In working with patent attorneys over the years I have learned something about how they think. One thing I've learned is that to show that someone has infringed a patent claim that includes (comprises) several elements, you must show that the infringing product uses all of the elements. The claim in FIRST's patent 7507169 comprises eight elements: Spoiler for 7507619:
Did VEX use all of the elements claimed? Let's see: 1) establishing a contest played on a playing field with at least four robots, such robots designed and built with participation of such students, such contest requiring accomplishment repetitively of a designated physical task on the playing field, yep, did that one wherein: 2) (i) each robot is controlled by a distinct team of students and designed to repetitively accomplish the physical task, performance of which on the playing field by a given robot triggering attribution to a score based on frequency of achievement of the physical task by the given robot; did that one, too and 3)(ii) the contest is conducted in matches between two competing alliances of the teams, each match including a plurality of teams from each alliance; and that one 4) assigning a raw score after each match to each alliance based on frequency of achievement of the task by robots of each team in each such alliance; and that one 5) determining a final score for a winning alliance in each match, such winning alliance having a raw score exceeding the raw score of the other alliance by 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, so that the winning alliance is thus motivated to cause the other alliance to achieve a high raw score, and the teams of each alliance must work cooperatively; seems like they did that one, or maybe a variant (?) with the same intent [edit: it can also be argued that the patent claim doesn't cover variants like the one used by VEX] 6) setting a final score for the other alliance in each match equal to the raw score achieved by that alliance; did that one and 7) ranking the teams based on the final scores achieved in matches in which they participate; 8) 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. and they did those two, also. So it looks like FIRST might have a case for infringement. Last edited by Richard Wallace : 13-05-2009 at 16:51. Reason: on the other hand... |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?
Richard is right, interpreting patent claims for possible infringement is a very specialized area of patent law and there are many very, very bright and hard working patent attorneys in this area. (And it is one of the most lucrative specialties as well.) And I am positive that Dean, who is very bright himself and very knowledgeable about patent law, has made sure that whatever group of attorneys is handling this patent is well aware of the potential infringement issue. IFI and FIRST still talk to each other - IFI employees were special guests at Atlanta. They all have the same goal as Dave pointed out, and there is plenty of room for both programs to grow. So I would bet that agreements and/or licensing have already been worked out.
As a side note, all patent attorneys have to have the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in a science or technical field such as engineering before they can get licensed to practice patent law. Many have PhDs in their field before they go to law school. Here are the IFI patents referred to in a previous note. Highly recommended if you need some help getting to sleep at night. The systems described may look familiar to you. |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?
Just as a note or two: The patent was issued in 2004, based on the FRC 2003 game. At that time, the only FIRST-related competitions were FRC, FLL, and possible JFLL. FVC (now IFI's VRC and FIRST's FTC) was still in the planning phases for the pilot. So ANY violations are after the patent was issued.
However, while the patent claim comprises 8 elements, as Richard pointed out, the rest of the patent is also important (otherwise, it wouldn't be there, riiight?). If you read the patent, it's pretty much the game rules from the 2003 FRC game. So it's pretty easy to counter that the patent covers only the methods in said game. It's just as easy to say that the patent covers all methods of the sort, and anybody who uses said methods is in violation of the patent, no matter who they are. (OCCRA comes to mind--I think they use the loser's score modification to the winner's score, or used to.) And, of course, all this discussion is moot if FIRST (and/or Dean) decides not to file a claim, or if IFI and FIRST have already worked out some arrangement. |
|
#10
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?
I contest that item 5 that Richard states that is part of independent claim #1 is where FIRSTs entire patent falls apart since the implementation of the win loss. Here is my quote from my other post:
Quote:
If a company came after FANUC for infringing on this patent I know the FANUC attornies would have a field day. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Did he just say that? | Richard Wallace | Championship Event | 2 | 27-04-2006 21:15 |
| FAHA mailbox: I Got Something To Say And It Ain't Pretty | SilenceNoMore | General Forum | 12 | 20-04-2004 00:50 |
| did they say purchase tickets?! | Amanda Aldridge | General Forum | 16 | 05-01-2003 12:24 |
| please help us, pretty please :) | archiver | 2001 | 0 | 24-06-2002 03:13 |
| What did that screen say? | Greg Ross | CD Forum Support | 1 | 01-02-2002 08:46 |