Lego - Patent on the orange gear shifter

[amorti]

Lego has a patent application for the orange gear shifter:

 

Here are the patent applications in English and Chinese: https://johnnysworld.wetransfer.com/downloads/14bc57d264ef2f8d7e16c165a3097d5820210923162736/b06d9e/grid?fbclid=IwAR0ZtEaNom2_DKLtPVSTGEII4wTymGZm8ANjEX_BvY80lyq_k03RZQujtSQ

But that's a good thing, right? Why shouldn't Lego protect itself against pirates? Well, here is a video in German that explains: 

Short version: Lego is playing Monopoly against their competition (again). The CaDA supercars from @T Lego and @brunojj1 will become illegal. You may not be against that, but they're also playing against any AFOL with a MOC on rebrickable using that part (in a gearbox). If that's you, you're probably already infringing a patent, even though it's not been granted yet. And that's an expensive game.

In the meantime, you can get a mega bargain on Bruno's red supercar in Europe as Freakware hold a fire sale: 145€ for a 1:8 supercar with PF or 100€ without PF!

Edited September 24, 2021 by amorti

[keymaker]

I do not understand, why AFOLs with their MOCs on Rebrickable should be afraid? They are selling instructions, not bricks itself.

[Bartybum]

I was under the impression that for patents to be valid, they had to be filed before others also made use of the technology.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Bartybum

[Gimmick]

I was wondering why this part (and other specialized parts) is not protected, but other things are. Well this answered my question...

And apart from that, it was never really clear to me when a solution could be patented. Rounding a brick is one thing, thinking about a switching solution is another - maybe.

I know this helps against the "bad copycats" [Cada not included] and it is directed against all competitors [Cada included], but I'm not a fan of this behavior. And I know that they invent a lot of new useful parts but that's one reason why I accept higher prices and I would never buy pure clone-brands [Cada not included].

I do not think, that this will affect MOCs.

And I do not agree with his "fair play" argument, since nothing happend yet (status of the patent is unclear) and he said multiple times, that he accepts, that TLG invented it ;) Like always, everyone(!) thinks "fair play = I can do what I want and if not -> that's not fair" x)

But I agree: If anyone likes the supercars -> go for it now, great models :).

[kbalage]

TLG is totally free to play "monopoly" against the copycats as you say - they spare tons of $ on R&D by simply copy-pasting LEGO parts and selling them for cheap so people can complain how expensive LEGO is. CaDA seemed to be wise enough so far to come up with similar but not identical pieces, I'm sure they'll manage it going forward.

About the part regarding MOC creators - I think this is nonsense and pure clickbait drama. TLG has a huge amount of patented pieces (look who invented this one!), if they wanted or had the legal rights to kill Rebrickable, they could have done it in the past decade as well.

[2GodBDGlory]

I believe the CADA one has a noticeably different profile. The "ramp" slopes up more gradually, compared to the more abrupt bumps on the Lego ones at the extreme positions. I don't know if this makes any difference when it comes to a patent, though.

[amorti]

5 minutes ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

I believe the CADA one has a noticeably different profile. The "ramp" slopes up more gradually, compared to the more abrupt bumps on the Lego ones at the extreme positions. I don't know if this makes any difference when it comes to a patent, though.

It would help avoid breaching a design protection, but I think it wouldn't help here since it performs the identical technical function.

30 minutes ago, kbalage said:

 About the part regarding MOC creators - I think this is nonsense and pure clickbait drama. 

I hope it's so and I'm glad to see your example, but TLG has a quite active legal department.

[JimDude]

You know, TLG almost has me at the point where I'd like CADA (or was it MoldKing who released it first?) to patent the funky alternating hole beams.

[Maaboo the Witch]

16 minutes ago, JimDude said:

You know, TLG almost has me at the point where I'd like CADA (or was it MoldKing who released it first?) to patent the funky alternating hole beams.

Yeah. It works both ways, TLG. Or, at least, it should.

[Celeri]

As far as I know, CaDA has taken care of modifying the design of each part just enough so that their chances to be defeated in court for design patterns stay low : I happen to have the Red Supercar and indeed, even if their TLG's counterpart are highly recognisable, the parts all have differences visible enough to confirm that they are not strict copycats.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Celeri

[williamyzfr1]

So LEGO & CADA parts are interchangeable but they are not the same?

[proran]

1 hour ago, kbalage said:

TLG is totally free to play "monopoly" against the copycats as you say - they spare tons of $ on R&D by simply copy-pasting LEGO parts and selling them for cheap so people can complain how expensive LEGO is. CaDA seemed to be wise enough so far to come up with similar but not identical pieces, I'm sure they'll manage it going forward.

About the part regarding MOC creators - I think this is nonsense and pure clickbait drama. TLG has a huge amount of patented pieces (look who invented this one!), if they wanted or had the legal rights to kill Rebrickable, they could have done it in the past decade as well.

Very well said! I completely agree. Regrading Rebrickable, I think now TLG recognizes the importance of AFOLs and the user community in general and it will be smart enough not to damage these relations. 

Once I was working for a company selling engineering software. They knew about every single illegal copy of it running somewhere. But they've only persuaded legal action when it was beneficial for the company and worth the effort. There is no point for a large company going to the court against small companies or, for sure, against individuals.

So my guess the target here is CaDA, not AFOLs or Rebrickable.

[amorti]

15 minutes ago, williamyzfr1 said:

So LEGO & CADA parts are interchangeable but they are not the same?

Yep. The same way any set of car alloy wheels might have the same dimensions but a different design.

To pursue that analogy, this is as if Lego had patented the technical concept "wheels", and not only protected the design of their own wheels.

[Gray Gear]

I thought to patent an idea it had to be new? The mechanism in question basically works the same as this:

(Part of motorcycle transmission)

Edited September 24, 2021 by Gray Gear

[TeamThrifty]

2 hours ago, kbalage said:

TLG is totally free to play "monopoly" against the copycats as you say - they spare tons of $ on R&D by simply copy-pasting LEGO parts and selling them for cheap so people can complain how expensive LEGO is. CaDA seemed to be wise enough so far to come up with similar but not identical pieces, I'm sure they'll manage it going forward.

About the part regarding MOC creators - I think this is nonsense and pure clickbait drama. TLG has a huge amount of patented pieces (look who invented this one!), if they wanted or had the legal rights to kill Rebrickable, they could have done it in the past decade as well.

Well said .*1000

TLG spend millions on r&d and are totally entitled to patent it. Thousands of companies patent things every day, this is normal business practice - you have to protect your intellectual property. Anybody who thinks differently is naïve (at best)

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

Yeah. It works both ways, TLG. Or, at least, it should.

If TLG have got one back after having their entire platform copied/stolen, good on them. They created the whole thing... the flipflop beam is a great example of someone standing on the shoulders of giants.

Can't believe that this forum is critical of TLG protecting its own designs. 

[BrickTronic]

2 hours ago, kbalage said:

...

TLG has a huge amount of patented pieces (look who invented this one!), ...

When digging in Link kbalage posted, I found nice Info.

It seems that Lego has patented also remote controllers in XBOX/PS4 shape and WEE-Format :

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200298106A1/en?q=lego&assignee=Lego+A%2fS&page=1

Why did they not introduce them with BLE and LWP3.0.0 Protocol for use with 42109 and other

 

Jo

[kbalage]

4 minutes ago, BrickTronic said:

It seems that Lego has patented also remote controllers in XBOX/PS4 shape and WEE-Format :

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200298106A1/en?q=lego&assignee=Lego+A%2fS&page=1

Nice catch! I really hope it's not just an idea they wanted to protect but a it becomes a real product. Technic desperately needs it!

[Void_S]

Well, there are many and thousand reasons why the patented thing may never be released even as prototypes.

Having some experience on how the electric companies do the same with their patents, I may say that the steps are the following:

1. Develop an idea.
2. Patent it once it reached some level of detailed and well-described concept (not an abstract idea that can not be patented).
3. Now, the magic starts:

• [common way] You may go ahead and if the concept meets all market criteria and expectations issue the product protected with a patent.
• [MS + Android/Google way] Deal with some competitors to have an agreement of using this concept for some fees. MS really charges the Google company for each Android device because of some MS's proprietary code used in this OS.
• [patent troll] You have no plans to really issue the product (as it is expected to be quite unsucesfull as you wanted to) but your competitors will never release it too))

[Maaboo the Witch]

53 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

Anybody who thinks differently is naïve (at best)

This is a public forum and people are fully entitled to express their opinions here. Calling someone who doesn't agree with you "naïve" is just plain polemical and doesn't foster open and respectful debate.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Maaboo35

[brunojj1]

I´m proud having "invented" a part for CaDA, among others, which is currently being used in their "Osprey" Tilt rotor helicopter C61076W: 

I have no patent for that (yet) . And I don´t care. 

Does somebody have suggestions for any NEW part as substitute for the orange wave selector we are talking about? Keep in mind the whole concept is patented, not only the part´s geometry.

[Gray Gear]

@brunojj1 well yeah just put the slot on the orange rotating piece and the knob to slide inside on the ring selectors. That can't be patented anymore bacause it already exists this way:

Edited September 24, 2021 by Gray Gear

[dr_spock]

1 hour ago, kbalage said:

Nice catch! I really hope it's not just an idea they wanted to protect but a it becomes a real product. Technic desperately needs it!

Or license it to others who want to use it in products they make and sell.  I used to work a company with a large patent portfolio. Licensing was a significant source of their income.

[MurlosTehnik]

I don't care for their battles, they are all after money, I just care for us users. But since we may end up in a worse situation than it is now, then sucks. I don't want to see the increase in costs or limiting parts availability.

[efferman]

1 hour ago, Gray Gear said:

@brunojj1 well yeah just put the slot on the orange rotating piece and the knob to slide inside on the ring selectors. That can't be patented anymore bacause it already exists this way:

Well, then i should go tomorrow to the drawing board. Should be possible to do this in a useful size

Edited September 24, 2021 by efferman

[amorti]

12 minutes ago, efferman said:

 Well, then i should go tomorrow to the drawing board. Should be possible to do this in a useful size

I would like it a lot, if there could be a fan-designed piece that would replace the Lego item's functionality, to be built into a fan's model, and released by a competitor.

Especially if it didn't cost millions in R&D and didn't take years to bring into production.