Subject:
|
Re: Lego patents
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 Dec 2001 03:23:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
728 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.robotics, sjbaker1@airmail.net writes:
> > Allan Bedford wrote:
>
> > > 2. Have any of you created Lego projects, or know of any, that might be
> > > patentable?
> >
> > A 'patent' by definition is typically obtainable only when a person or
> > company has designed a new device or mechanism. Examples? The stud and
> > tube interlocking mechanism of the original LEGO bricks are one example.
> > The particular clicking action of a computer mouse might be another. But
> > you have to create some mechanical or chemical system which has effectively
> > never been produced before. Silly putty... another example.
> >
> > By simply creating a LEGO project, you are not expanding the device used to
> > make the basic bricks, upon which someone else already has a patent. You
> > *might* be able to obtain a copyright on your design, or trademark the name
> > of the company under which you intend to sell your creations, but you can't
> > really patent a LEGO project, unless I misunderstand your question.
>
> That can't be true. You are saying that you couldn't patent a machine
> because it's made from standard parts?
Not at all. What I'm saying is that just putting a bunch of LEGO bricks
together does not qualify something as a device which can be patented. Now
if that LEGO construction can remove cancerous tumours without leaving any
scars.... now that's something you can patent!
> People patent electronic devices made from off-the-shelf logic chips
> all the time.
Exactly. That was my point. That the device can be patented. But it's
also my understanding that the device must effective do something no other
device can do, or do it differently than any other machine. Example? A
device that extracts orange juice from oranges while they're still on the
tree. That is something you might be able to patent. But simply
resubmitting designs for machines that already exist does not normally
qualify you for a patent. Or such is the way it has been explained to me.
> I don't see any legal reason why a Lego machine shouldn't be patentable
> if it relies some mechanism thats unique and interesting.
That was my point. Sorry if I didn't make it clear on the first pass.
> Suppose you came up with some kind of walking robot that used a leg
> geometry that had some special property - I don't think the patent
> people would care whether it was built from Lego or machined from
> aluminum stock.
Precisely... because you are attempting to patent the leg geometry or
mechanism, not the LEGO bricks the thing was made of.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lego patents
|
| (...) That can't be true. You are saying that you couldn't patent a machine because it's made from standard parts? People patent electronic devices made from off-the-shelf logic chips all the time. I don't see any legal reason why a Lego machine (...) (23 years ago, 27-Dec-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
