Comments on: MGA Sued for Copying Innovation First’s HEXBUG® Nano™ Toy http://www.hexbug.com/news/2010/10/05/mga-sued-for-copying-innovation-first%e2%80%99s-hexbug%c2%ae-nano%e2%84%a2-toy/ Just another WordPress weblog Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:40:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Jean auBois http://www.hexbug.com/news/2010/10/05/mga-sued-for-copying-innovation-first%e2%80%99s-hexbug%c2%ae-nano%e2%84%a2-toy/#comment-4567 Jean auBois Tue, 09 Nov 2010 06:12:17 +0000 http://www.hexbug.com/news/?p=2719#comment-4567 Look, folks, the Nano isn't even a spin-off of the "vibrobots" Mark Tilden came up with when paging motors WITHOUT external spindles became available. In fact, there was quite a bit of contention about the "intelligence" or "cognition" of Mr. Tilden's 1994 Spyder robot that caused sufficient commotion on the BEAM mailing list in 1997 that some authors were summarily kicked off. Nonetheless, the concept espoused (not by myself) that even a common dog's fine-spindled, angle-spine de-matting tool, if outfitted with a vibrating device of some sort would quite ably be able to climb fairly well. Ah, if history were that simple! Along comes EvilMadScientist with the BristleBot ( http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/bristlebot - hey, WHO is copying WHOSE technology? So they didn't use AG13 batteries: the physical resemblance alone would sear the soul of the stoutest defender of your so-called proprietary intellectual property rights!) to the amusement of many. Nonetheless, it raised the ire of others who claimed that they had come up with the concept first... leading to an argument that showed clear claims to the technology going back thirty or more years. I think that a -good- patent attorney could tick off quite a few of the "claims" of your Nano (presuming you've got a patent for what you are selling)... perhaps not nullifying such a document, but rendering it so weak as to be an untenable defense by your organization. Next, someone will come along and point out that your use of an electric motor is an infringement on work originated by Michael Faraday in 1821! It is to laugh! Look, folks, the Nano isn’t even a spin-off of the “vibrobots” Mark Tilden came up with when paging motors WITHOUT external spindles became available. In fact, there was quite a bit of contention about the “intelligence” or “cognition” of Mr. Tilden’s 1994 Spyder robot that caused sufficient commotion on the BEAM mailing list in 1997 that some authors were summarily kicked off. Nonetheless, the concept espoused (not by myself) that even a common dog’s fine-spindled, angle-spine de-matting tool, if outfitted with a vibrating device of some sort would quite ably be able to climb fairly well. Ah, if history were that simple! Along comes EvilMadScientist with the BristleBot ( http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/bristlebot – hey, WHO is copying WHOSE technology? So they didn’t use AG13 batteries: the physical resemblance alone would sear the soul of the stoutest defender of your so-called proprietary intellectual property rights!) to the amusement of many. Nonetheless, it raised the ire of others who claimed that they had come up with the concept first… leading to an argument that showed clear claims to the technology going back thirty or more years.

I think that a -good- patent attorney could tick off quite a few of the “claims” of your Nano (presuming you’ve got a patent for what you are selling)… perhaps not nullifying such a document, but rendering it so weak as to be an untenable defense by your organization. Next, someone will come along and point out that your use of an electric motor is an infringement on work originated by Michael Faraday in 1821!

It is to laugh!

]]>