Lego - Patent on the orange gear shifter

[Gray Gear]

@efferman please do. I had the Idea, but I don't have the needed skills to turn it into an actual design. Thank you 

[TinkerBrick]

Guys, this patent is not about the part (orange changeover rotary catch).

The patent is about the idea of  "a toy gearbox". It is further described  "toy gearboxes comprising a gear support construction having a gear shaft rotatably supported by the gear support construction and having at least one spline and a gear wheel rotatably arranged on the gear shaft, and where the gear wheel is connected to a first clutch member rotatably comprising a driving ring being fixed against rotation about and slidably arranged on the gear shaft and comprising a guide member and at least one claw clutch for selectively engaging or disengaging with the first clutch member and thereby engaging or disengaging the gear wheel from rotating along with the gear shaft, and where a gear shifter is used engaging with the guide member of the axially slidable driving ring and being configured for axially sliding the second clutch member on the gear shaft." (page number 2).

That means the whole idea of the mechanism of a gear engaged by a rotary shift is patented. A simple change in the design of the changeover catch won't help. The patent grants TLG the exklusive right to use these kind of mechanisms in toys. 

6 hours ago, Bartybum said:

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

TLG filed the patent in January 2019. That date is relevant.

[efferman]

2 minutes ago, TinkerBrick said:

A simple change in the design of the changeover catch won't help

I will use a piece between the spline and the clutch.  Should do the same in a different way. The Idea behind the Patent cant Block every solution with a Rotary piece.

[2GodBDGlory]

25 minutes ago, TinkerBrick said:

Guys, this patent is not about the part (orange changeover rotary catch).

The patent is about the idea of  "a toy gearbox". It is further described  "toy gearboxes comprising a gear support construction having a gear shaft rotatably supported by the gear support construction and having at least one spline and a gear wheel rotatably arranged on the gear shaft, and where the gear wheel is connected to a first clutch member rotatably comprising a driving ring being fixed against rotation about and slidably arranged on the gear shaft and comprising a guide member and at least one claw clutch for selectively engaging or disengaging with the first clutch member and thereby engaging or disengaging the gear wheel from rotating along with the gear shaft, and where a gear shifter is used engaging with the guide member of the axially slidable driving ring and being configured for axially sliding the second clutch member on the gear shaft." (page number 2).

That means the whole idea of the mechanism of a gear engaged by a rotary shift is patented. A simple change in the design of the changeover catch won't help. The patent grants TLG the exklusive right to use these kind of mechanisms in toys. 

TLG filed the patent in January 2019. That date is relevant.

I can understand why one might think Lego has the right to patent the wave selector (I'm going to have to think more about the theory behind intellectual property now!), but I don't see any way they could have the right to patent using gearboxes with rotary shifting in toys. That seems much too vague to be grounds for a patent!

Also, I can't believe that slidably and rotatably are real words! Those are definitely going into my vocabulary from now on!

[Bartybum]

Patenting a configuration of prefab components assembled together reeks of the same BS as Boeing patenting that orbital manoeuvre...

[Bartybum]

Also, does this not just mean that a clone company could come up with a solution that inverts the clutch and rotary catch? That way the rotary could have the slot and the clutch ring could have the flange.

[mdemerchant]

 

4 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

I can understand why one might think Lego has the right to patent the wave selector (I'm going to have to think more about the theory behind intellectual property now!), but I don't see any way they could have the right to patent using gearboxes with rotary shifting in toys. That seems much too vague to be grounds for a patent!

It's not that hard to get patents granted for surprisingly general ideas like this.  The IP lawyers at my company always encourage our patent applications to be as broad as possible.  You can always narrow the scope if your initial application is rejected because it's considered overly broad.

The thing to remember is the patent office are not experts in all subjects and they may allow people to patent all sorts of things that will not ultimately stand up in court.  One of the key defenses you can try in an infringement case is to claim the patent is overly broad and should be invalidated on that basis.  Basically you argue the patent office made a mistake in granting the patent and if a judge agrees the patent effectively disappears.  The catch of course is that getting to that point will cost you legal fees running into the millions if you are fighting a determined large corporation.  You need deep pockets and you have to be pretty sure you're going to win to take it that far.

I completely agree with the comments that the patent is irrelevant to MOCers.  Real companies like Lego only exercise their IP weapons against big targets where they believe they have something significant to gain.  Patent trolls are less discriminating but even they will not go after individuals, there's no money in that.

Edited September 25, 2021 by mdemerchant

[2GodBDGlory]

23 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Also, does this not just mean that a clone company could come up with a solution that inverts the clutch and rotary catch? That way the rotary could have the slot and the clutch ring could have the flange.

Well, TinkerBrick was saying that the patent was actually for toy gearboxes with rotary shifting, however it is accomplished.

[Lyichir]

1 hour ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

Well, TinkerBrick was saying that the patent was actually for toy gearboxes with rotary shifting, however it is accomplished.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Reading the application, it seems fairly specific as to what form the components take. Anything where the cam used a groove that guided actual selector forks (like most IRL sequential transmissions seem to) would be well outside the purview of this patent, which seems to focus on the particular way that Lego has simplified and miniaturized that function to work as part of a kid-friendly, customizable building system. And personally, I don't really see it as a problem that Lego would want to patent an innovation of that sort. It sometimes surprises me how many people in the Lego fan community DO seem to think that that's a problem—even among people who otherwise seem to respect the level of design and engineering work that goes into Lego sets and parts.

 

[Bartybum]

1 hour ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

Well, TinkerBrick was saying that the patent was actually for toy gearboxes with rotary shifting, however it is accomplished.

Suuuurely Tamiya’s gotta have some fists to throw over that.

I also wonder whether anybody here or anywhere else (maybe even unrelated to Lego) has published the concept of a rotary selector prior to 2017, when the part would likely have been developed. It seems like such a basic mechanism that surely someone would have to have come up with it in the RC hobby. I also don’t understand why there’s a distinction between toy gearboxes and non-toy gearboxes. As proven by a photo posted earlier, the mechanism already exists for large machinery, so it’s not really an original invention.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Bartybum

[howitzer]

2 hours ago, Bartybum said:

I also don’t understand why there’s a distinction between toy gearboxes and non-toy gearboxes. As proven by a photo posted earlier, the mechanism already exists for large machinery, so it’s not really an original invention.

Toys have very different field of application, userbase and requirements of durability, safety, etc. so I see no problem in patenting something that was specifically developed for toys even if the basic principle had already been applied elsewhere. I think the Torsen differential is a similar case.

Other than that, I think @kbalage said basically everything that needs to be said on this topic.

[efferman]

Is this different enough?

edit: i should better remove the picture.

Edited September 25, 2021 by efferman

[brunojj1]

19 minutes ago, efferman said:

Is this different enough?

In my very humble opinion - YES it is! I will present the idea to Martin immediately, along with another even simpler proposal I had in mind.

[Gray Gear]

@efferman Wow you did a great job! Looks very promising.

[thekoRngear]

13 hours ago, dr_spock said:

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.

That could be done. I guess it could potentially avoid any worse situation for the customers in the future. Howevr, for a part which is already used by Cada and now gets out of the bag as a patented one can pave the way to some troubles. Lets see. Hopefully, in the meantime Brunojj1 will come up successful with something wayy smarter as a solution for orange rotary part.

Edited September 25, 2021 by thekoRngear

[Gimmick]

So the date is 2019 2018 and nothing happend yet?

Since Cada has problems with clone brands, too, I would try to 'license' that and if someone clones a Cada-Model use that as starting point. x)

Edit: Old gearbox from 1996 was patented, too - as mentioned in the "new" document.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5687610A/en?oq=5687610

I do not think, that this was "clearly attempted at frightening potential competitors" - in 1996.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Gimmick

[Bartybum]

So this patent also showed up in a post on the largest bootlego-related Subreddit (I won't link it here for obvious reasons, but if you frequent Lego Subreddits then you should know which infamous L-word I'm talking about), but there's a user called /u/genericipguy who claims to be a patent attorney, and he has some insights that I felt were worth posting here. Note that these are a direct copy-paste.

/u/genericipguy:

Am a patent attorney, so some more information from my side:
a) This is a PCT application - not a granted patent.
b) Lego has used this Application to file patents in China, Europe & USA.
c) None of the 3 countries have yet granted the patent, but Europe seems on track to grant it.

The patent (when granted) would create problems for toy gear boxes having at least 2 clutches, a claw clutch and a gear shifter (among other components).

There are counter arguments that are not the right place for this forum but on a basic level, I think it is a badly drafted patent document, clearly attempted at frightening potential competitors, including companies where they do not replicate Lego' sets exactly.

[efferman]

Every gearbox with a Clutch would be against this Patent?

[Bartybum]

4 minutes ago, efferman said:

Every gearbox with a Clutch would be against this Patent?

With a rotary catch it seems

[MinusAndy]

7 hours ago, efferman said:

This looks like it would work better than the Lego one. I feel having the intermediate part may help prevent the catch from binding under load. A curved transition between the flat engaged slot and the angled slot might help with this even more. Awesome work.

Edited September 25, 2021 by MinusAndy

[TeamThrifty]

23 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

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.

Don't quote me out of context, thats the cheapest trick going. What i said was....

"this is normal business practice - you have to protect your intellectual property. Anybody who thinks differently is naïve (at best)"

..Which is correct. Every company involved in R&D patents their IP. Thats a statement of fact, not an opinion. If somebody thinks this isn't normal, widespread business practice, then by definition, they are naïve. 

Definition: (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom

So its not anything to spin into an angle against my words. I wasn't even expressing a personal view, simply stating what is fact.. so play your politics with someone else. Take your judgemental blinkers off and realise i was stating fact and not attacking anybody. 

[Gimmick]

We need licenses like opensource for hardware.

But not going to happen... x)

[Maaboo the Witch]

24 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

Don't quote me out of context, thats the cheapest trick going.

so play your politics with someone else. Take your judgemental blinkers off and realise i was stating fact and not attacking anybody. 

Way to prove your point... by going right on the attack.

I'm not saying your point was invalid, just that you could have couched it better.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Maaboo35

[Gimmick]

Think positiv:

If someone steals your MOC -> not allowed for sale because of TLG patent

[Bartybum]

9 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

Way to prove your point... by going right on the attack. 

Another cheap trick. You had it coming, move on.

9 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

I'm not saying your point was invalid, just that you could have couched it better.

His comment seems fine to me... None of what he said that you quoted sounds hostile

Edited September 26, 2021 by Bartybum