Did VEX have to say Pretty Please?

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](http://www.vexrobotics.com/vex-clean-sweep.shtml), 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

1 Like

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.

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.

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.

Temporary tangent:

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

.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

.

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:

I’m disagreeing with a FIRST lawsuit holding up in court.

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”.

Exactly. No where in VEX’s rules is the winning alliance’s score added to the other alliance’s score.

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.

Is it possible that the intent of this patent is not to divide the various organizations, but to provide a means to join them? I will agree with the idea that this patent is defensible in court is ludicrous, but it could be a political tool. Licensing ‘coopertition’ for $1 among the various organizations could provide a series of media bites to draw attention to S&T. It also provides a tangible reference to point at during the PR battle to promote change.

The question then becomes, will other organizations play ball with this idea… coopertition between organizations. Dean has said for a while that he thinks companies should behave more like the teams. FIRST can’t take this to a corporate level by itself, it needs a partner. Perhaps licensing this patent is percieved as a way to demonstrate that.

So did VEX have to say pretty please? Nah, but I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody wants a dollar.

I’m not an attorney, much less a patent attorney, nor have I ever played one on TV. Some of my favorite and least favorite people are patent attorneys. They are well paid, favorites of mine or not, and generally they worked hard to gain the qualifications for their jobs.

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:
7507619

1. A method for fostering coopertition and gracious professionalism among students while inspiring an appreciation of science and technology, the method comprising: 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, 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; 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; 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; 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; 6) setting a final score for the other alliance in each match equal to the raw score achieved by that alliance; 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.

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.

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.

US7330776(B1).pdf (1.57 MB)
US7193384(B1).pdf (1.42 MB)
US6674259(B1,X6).pdf (1.52 MB)


US7330776(B1).pdf (1.57 MB)
US7193384(B1).pdf (1.42 MB)
US6674259(B1,X6).pdf (1.52 MB)

No, there is no citation. I think Phil was recalling a discussion I had with him several times. I believe I used the number “8” in my discussions with Phil because I had done limited “ad hoc” research on the competitions that run more than one at a time and had come up with 8, but in no way did I mean than those “8” were all that existed. Also, I put a disclaimer on my original comments to Phil, which was “K-12” student robotics competitions. There are also several college/university related robotics competitions out there that are and have been running many robots simultaneously for quite awhile.

However, I too agree that the discussion of “multiple robots simultaneously” is one that has some bearing on this discussion for sure and I thank Phil for bringing it up.

Yep.
I’ve seen it.
I couldn’t agree more.

Amen. AMEN. YES!!!

…and, if you look REALLY REALLY close the seeds for this have been planted.

A few years ago I had the pleasure of being a part of this:
http://www.tsarobotics.org

Sadly, there once was a lot more content there than you see now. The list of attendees was a who’s who from the robotics education/competition world. Key folks involved in Botball, FRC, FLL, the old FVC, Bots IQ (they got rid of the word “battle” on purpose because they felt it sent the wrong message) were there. I think people involved in MATE were there too, but I’m not sure. Some were national reps, some were regional reps, some invited guests, some there in an “official” capacity, and some not. All were hand picked for specific purposes however. Jeff Seaton spoke, Vince Wilczynski spoke, Alex Slocum spoke. Several more collegiate Robotics Educators spoke. Robin Shoop was there, so was Dan Larochelle and his boss from Intelitek. So was Donn Griffith. Other large corporations such as DuPont had reps on site. The whole thing was “put on” by the Technology Student Association and funded by an NSF grant. It’s interesting to note that TSA does not currently have a pure “Robotics Competition” as a part of their national events, but they clearly see the value and some of their regional and state chapters have begun to adopt some VEX initiatives, etc.

The aftermath of that collective effort produced this document:
http://www.tsarobotics.org/roboticsframework.html
“The Standards-Based Competition Curriculum Development Framework”

So, although this was a seemingly one-time event, look at what it produced and look at what is possible. Also know that some relationships that were previously non-existent or somewhat contentious before continue today in a positive way.

There are things your team and organization can do to help grow these relationships. Our team is fortunate enough to be a part of a larger club that is also home to a TSA chapter. Because of that, wonderful stuff like this occurs:
http://www.tsaweb.org/LMHS-Portable%20Inspiration
http://www.usfirst.org/who/content.aspx?id=11844

I also had the privilege of helping to edit some of the content for robotevents.com - specifically the mission statement is what I’m most proud of. Here’s a home where all of these organizations can “get together” if they so choose.

It was also very encouraging to see representatives from other robotics competitions (including FRC from the Dallas Region) in the vendor/display area at the VRC World Championship in Dallas a few weeks ago.

I bet lots of teams and organizations on these boards do similar things and I bet there’s lots more other teams can do locally to help bring these groups together as well.

Now, if someone can figure out how to line up all of the planets to bring all of these organizational leaders and key players together in an official capacity, with a slightly wider focus than the previous Robotics Education Symposium had, you’d earn an even BIGGER cookie than the one Pat Fairbank received.

Those of you who know me know I’m really into the Randy Pausch efficiency thing and there’s no one task that I’d like to see accomplished more than our mission of inspiration for the socially conscious designers of the future. The model Dave proposes IS the best one and there’s some evidence to show that it’s possible and it CAN work.

For now, I’m choosing to be an optimist about these patents and will believe that they will never be enforced in ways that would slow the progress of our mission until I see otherwise.

Let’s make this happen.

Namaste.