| |||||||||||||
The JMRI Project and software patentsThe JMRI Project and software patentsPosted Apr 25, 2006 16:29 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)Parent article: The JMRI Project and software patents
Could we have PJ's explanation of the patent, so we know exactly what we're looking for? One common problem with asking for prior art from experts in the field is that reading patents is somewhat tricky, and it's easy to find previous inventions which fit criteria which are non-normative or incomplete. So there's a patent on a nail clipper, for example, and people say, "I've been clipping my nails with a nail clipper for 30 years!" But the patent is actually on a way to make nail clippers with one fewer part than anyone's done before, but people trying to read it tend to quit reading while the patent is still describing things everybody knows about nail clippers to provide the necessary context to be able to state what's different, and so they think they find a lot of prior art, because they're only reading parts that the invention shares with the inventions that it improves upon. So it would be helpful to have a plain language description saying what would be necessary to invalidate this patent and what would just be considered a different invention.
(Log in to post comments)
Need more explanation of "what we're looking for" Posted Apr 25, 2006 17:39 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] I agree, we need more explanation of what we're looking for. The right to create blog entry on this refers to the KAM letter. I looked at the KAM letter, and the letter focuses on this: "Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,530, 329 claims a method of operating a digitally controlled model railroad comprising the steps of: (a) transmitting a first command from a first program to an interface; (b) transmitting a second command from a second program to said interface; and (c) sending third and fourth commands from said interface representative of said first and second commands, respectively, to a digital command station."I would love to see a more detailed posting on WHAT prior art, exactly, they're looking for, so we could all help more directly. But the above may be a start. Identifying many previous model train controllers might help to at least some extent, since one of those may very well have the other properties they're looking for. The notion that you can patent multiplexing when you apply them to model railroads is ludicrous, and points out the problem in the patent system: It fails to work rationally with software. It's like a painter being told he can't paint, because someone patented the idea of painting big buildings. Software developers go to school to learn a large set of well-known techniques and then apply the techniques to each problem they face. Multiplexing is one of those well-known techniques. The idea of applying a well-known technique to a well-understood problem is immediately obvious to any practitioner of software development, and thus the patent should never have been granted in the first place. Frankly, the fact that JMRI was first should be enough, right?
What about full-size trains controllers as prior art Posted Apr 26, 2006 11:26 UTC (Wed) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] So the patent talks about model trains. In the normal universe (as opposed to the looking-glass world of patents), it is obvious to anyone that controlling model trains with a computer is not much different in principle than controlling real trains (if anything, model trains should be much simpler). So when was the first fully-automated rail system (including subways, trams, airport terminal trains, automated carts running on factory floors, whatever) designed? I am pretty sure I have heard of such things being done before 1986.
One computer-controlled train example: Posted Apr 26, 2006 11:34 UTC (Wed) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] Apologies for following up myself, but I just now remembered one very well-known (at least in Europe) case: The Docklands Light Railway in London.Accoring to the info on this page: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/dlr/about/infopack.shtml, (follow the DOWNLOAD FREE INFORMATION PACK (PDF) link), construction started in 1984 and it was opened to the public in 1987. It was computer-controlled right from the start.
One computer-controlled train example: Posted Apr 27, 2006 11:02 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link] The London Underground's Victoria Line, opened in 1968, was designed to run under automated control. Officially it was never run without a "driver". Unofficially there has been at least one instance when the driver (or ratherm, manual supervisor) got out of the cab without disabling the automation, and the train took off without him, no harm done.
What about full-size trains controllers as prior art Posted Apr 27, 2006 10:56 UTC (Thu) by macc (subscriber, #510) [Link] the "Institut für Flugführung" at TU-Braunscheig, Germany
had a large Modelrailway to demonstrate general concepts
forgot to mention the year : old in 1984 Posted Apr 27, 2006 11:07 UTC (Thu) by macc (subscriber, #510) [Link] i.e. it was already shoved in the corner then becausethe institute had moved on to air traffic control
In Germnay starting in the 80ties you could buy a lot of
Magazines like Elektor or ELV probably had project
forgot to mention the year : old in 1984 Posted May 4, 2006 15:47 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] I also recall reading about a system that allowed you to use your computer to control your model railroad in a Märklin catalogue - this must've been in the early 90s. I'm not a model railroad fan myself anymore, but if somebody else still has those catalogues or can find them on eBay, it might be worth looking into.
What about full-size trains controllers as prior art Posted May 17, 2006 11:34 UTC (Wed) by stuartward (guest, #37788) [Link] There is a fully automated "Train" that runs between the North and South Terminals at Gatwick Airport. The north terminal was opened in 1988, so presumably the train was designed well before that.
From http://www.gatwick-airport-uk.info/gatwickairporthistory.htm
and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Gatwick_Airport
Need more explanation of "what we're looking for" Posted May 30, 2006 12:48 UTC (Tue) by Fossils (guest, #38077) [Link] Your comment about Software developers is spot on. Even basic programming course teach these techniques. Furthermore does KAM Industries honestly want us or the patent office to believe that he was the first in this regard, that no one else has used logic gates and/or multiplexing in electronic circuits controlled by computers and software.Whats the definition of a "Digital Command Station" certainly not a term that can be specifically applied to a DCC controller in a train set.
What is the definition of "digitally controlled" in relation to a model railroad? what is the first command? an instruction issued by software or an electronic circuit be powered up and intialised.
|
|||||||||||||