Yeah and any competition using a similar format would be in “violation” of their patent. Like VEX.
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.
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.
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…
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?
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:
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.
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.
.
Of course, even when he is serious…Lavery is still messing with our heads.
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.
Dean’s patents.doc (439 KB)
Dean’s patents.doc (439 KB)
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. 
The patent office is clogged up with useless patents like this one 
By the way: here are the trademark serial numbers:
Gracious Professionalism : 77711102
Coopertition : 77713637
-Z
I saw this on Reddit and /. just seconds ago and searched and found this discussion.
I just lost almost all respect I had for Dean and FIRST for doing something as pointless as this. I hope this patent gets overturned. No matter what he says, what he does, this does NOT help robotics. I can see the one day where FIRST goes from trying to beat other programs and legally hurting other programs because it can’t compete in certain areas.
I give it a matter of years before everybody knows and has participated in FIRST…for all the wrong reasons.
Pavan Davé
Pavan,
I think you are misunderstanding FIRST’s intentions in getting these patents.
-
Patents serve to help spread ideas just as much as they protect them. Patents offer innovators a way to publicly share their inventions in a forum that still offers them legal protection from specific copying.
-
The specific wording of FIRST’s patents makes violating the independent claim virtually impossible. Unless each and every one of the parts of the claim are violated, there is no violation. If you read the fine print, the “coopertition” patent actually talks about a very specific scoring algorithm that other competitions have never used anyway.
FIRST isn’t trying to be the bully on the playground here. They are disseminating some “good ideas” in an official forum.
Was it necessary, and was it a good use of time and money? Not in my opinion, but I definitely don’t think it calls for a “loss of almost all respect” for Dean and FIRST.
This is a tremendous over-reaction.
Do you have any information that points to FIRST trying to enforce these patents against other organizations? Because I haven’t seen any.
By coming on here and saying something like you lost all respect for FIRST and Dean for filing for a patent is irresponsible. Make a decision based off of the facts…not what you think may happen, and if you can’t do that, at least wait for more facts to come out before you make judgement.
-Brando
I think that many people are over-reacting on this thread. When I saw Dean present these patents on Friday at the Championship, I got this impression:
Dean (and FIRST) is trying to communicate and bring attention to GP and Coopertition.
Dean (and FIRST) is trying to communicate and bring attention to the whole patent and trademark process, and therefore encouraging the FIRST community to do the same.
I did not get any impression that FIRST would litigate other entities who were using GP and Coopertition. As a matter of fact, Dean actually suggested that FIRST litigate if other entities did not use these two ideas.
More people should have gone to the opening ceremonies in Atlanta, and could have experienced how this was presented.
Andy
First let me start off by saying, I’m not to Dean Kamen as half of America is to Kobe Bryant or Lebron James. So now that that part is clear I can say it may be a slight overreaction but not too far fetched from my experiences.
As for I having seen FIRST cripple other organizations? I have worked with a few small organizations and robotics competitions in which FIRST has not been the “gracious professional” that everyone by default assumes, but that is not something FIRST will admit to and something the people behind these other small organizations will not speak of.
I do not care how it is worded I know from experience that people will dig through your rules and regulations and call a lawyer to find the smallest mistake or loophole. For either side. And with the way people in power usually behave, whatever their intentions may be, I don’t believe that everyone can be a winner. There’s too much at stake for FIRST. Whether it is tomorrow, ten years from now, or twenty-five years from now, I’ll still be watching out.
From what I have seen and what I have been involved I still stand by my statement.
Pavan Davé
Well from the extreme vagueness of your posts we have no clue whether or not you still are overreacting or not. All we know is that they did something that you didn’t like.
That is a very strong claim to make without presenting any evidence. Within the context of this and other posts, it is nearly comical.
Your tone is hurting your argument.
That aside, I don’t see as much value in this patent as others might. On the other hand, I’m relatively confident that it is a (potentially ineffective) tool, not a weapon.
Pavan,
I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with these posts. You are accusing FIRST of both past wrongdoings and the intent to commit future wrongdoings in a public forum without presenting any evidence whatsoever.
While you of course have the right to have and express your opinions, please realize that the manner in which you are choosing to express them reflects negatively upon yourself and the groups with which you are affiliated.