Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.robotics:7873 Newsgroups: lugnet.robotics Path: lugnet.com!lugnet From: "Michael Gasperi" <gasperi@alynk.com> X-Real-Life-Name: Michael Gasperi Subject: Lego Protocol Patent X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Organization: None Message-ID: <FKMMrK.93H@lugnet.com> X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: mkefw.ra.rockwell.com Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 14:54:45 GMT Lines: 7 I periodicaly search patents assigned to Interlego just to see what kind of stuff LEGO might be up to. I noticed this one granted in September on a communications protocol. I don't get into this level of programming detail and it might not even apply to mindstorms, but I thought I'd share the number with the rest of you. http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05952932__ BTW It is very unusual to have 55 claims in one patent.
Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.robotics:7874 Newsgroups: lugnet.robotics Path: lugnet.com!lugnet From: "Ralph Hempel" <rhempel@bmts.com> X-Real-Life-Name: Ralph Hempel Subject: RE: Lego Protocol Patent Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Reply-To: "Ralph Hempel" <rhempel@bmts.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: None X-Nntp-Gateway: lugnet.robotics@lugnet.com Message-ID: <000001bf2610$60ac4ca0$0500000a@pro150> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 References: <FKMMrK.93H@lugnet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lugnet.com Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:30:37 GMT Lines: 36 > I periodicaly search patents assigned to Interlego just to see what kind of > stuff LEGO might be up to. I noticed this one granted in September on a > communications protocol. I don't get into this level of programming detail > and it might not even apply to mindstorms, but I thought I'd share the > number with the rest of you. > http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05952932__ > BTW It is very unusual to have 55 claims in one patent. Good grief! Maybe I should get involved in patent law (or at least spec'ing for patent lawyers). Honestly, the basic protocol that is described has been implemented LOTS of times in small proprietary projects. In fact, the fire alarm system I'm currently implementing uses a multi-drop half-duplex master/slave system for sending information from one master panel to the slaves. It includes a message synchronization scheme, a major/minor protocol byte, integrated sequence/retry counter byte, and length and checksum byte. Read Tannenbaum's "Computer Networks" and you'll find it's not a very original idea. There really isn't anything special about these little protocols, I guess it's who gets it on paper first. The intent (I hope) is not to discourage others from using similar protocols in DISSIMILAR products, but to keep opportunistic scavengers from creating products SIMILAR to the RCX. Cheers, Ralph Hempel - P.Eng -------------------------------------------------------- Check out pbFORTH for LEGO Mindstorms at: <http://www.hempeldesigngroup.com/lego/pbFORTH> -------------------------------------------------------- Reply to: rhempel at bmts dot com --------------------------------------------------------
Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.robotics:7878 Newsgroups: lugnet.robotics Path: lugnet.com!not-for-mail From: kekoa@pixel.Stanford.EDU (Kekoa Proudfoot) X-Real-Life-Name: Kekoa Proudfoot Subject: Re: Lego Protocol Patent X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test69 (20 September 1998) Organization: Stanford University Message-ID: <FKMuoA.1yo@lugnet.com> References: <FKMMrK.93H@lugnet.com> <000001bf2610$60ac4ca0$0500000a@pro150> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pixel.stanford.edu Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:45:45 GMT Lines: 40 Ralph Hempel <rhempel@bmts.com> wrote: > Good grief! Maybe I should get involved in patent law (or at least spec'ing > for patent lawyers). > > Honestly, the basic protocol that is described has been implemented LOTS of > times in small proprietary projects. I agree with everything you've said, Ralph. My turn to say somthing about patents. I know the job of being a patent clerk must be amazingly difficult -- how can any person possibly know about enough prior art to tell the obvious from the obscure from the ingenious -- but sometimes there are claims in patents never cease to amaze me, and this patent in particular contains several such claims. Now at the same time, I think I see what TLG is afraid of and why they would want a patent like this. Now I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me there are several claims in the patent that are so broad they are ridiculous. If you keep reading though, you'll find that the claims get more and more specific to Mindstorms. See e.g claims 4 and 5 and the others that are similarly worded. Not to say that the scheme described in those claims has or hasn't been used before, but if anybody knows of a previous system that worked that way, that person knows too much about communications protocols. The point of the patent, I believe, is not to preserve the brilliance of the communications protocol, but is instead to thwart, to some extent or another, a competitor from selling a compatible product. Unclear but doubtful that the patent will prevent a determined competitor from selling a similar product. This being the first message I can recall posting since Mindfest, I should say that that event was very fun, worth going to, etc. I enjoyed meeting everybody, attaching faces and personalities to various projects and newsgroup postings, and being surprised that a set of plastic bricks could bring so many friendly and like-minded people together for an enjoyable weekend. Everybody I met had something interesting to say or share. Amazing. -Kekoa