Lego - Patent on the orange gear shifter

[brunojj1]

Guys, let´s come back to commenting in a constructive way and not fight over wordings. There is enough negativity in the world around us, here we are supposed to be on a neutral playground .

12 hours ago, Gimmick said:

Think positiv:

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

Indeed, this is the kind of humor I like - laughing my megablocks off !

[Gimmick]

1 hour ago, brunojj1 said:

Indeed, this is the kind of humor I like - laughing my megablocks off !

I'm the 'unverbesserliche Optimist'.

But srsly: TLG patents never affected MOCs and never will be.

[Scoar Sonander]

Although I might be late to this discussion, I think that TLG shouldn't really bother with trying to file lawsuits against poor MOC builders. In my opinion, MOCs are a subtle form of advertising for TLG, if you may. And, wie Gimmick gesagt hat, wird es jetzt schwieriger, fuer die Chinesischen Firmen Ideen illegal zu kopieren. I think that this was all for the better - but get your CaDA supercar before they collapse under the heaps of lawsuits that TLG will pile on them. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Scoar Sonander
I need to work on my German grammar

[howitzer]

1 hour ago, Scoar Sonander said:

Although I might be late to this discussion, I think that TLG shouldn't really bother with trying to file lawsuits against poor MOC builders. In my opinion, MOCs are a subtle form of advertising for TLG, if you may. And, wie Gimmick gesagt hat, wird es jetzt schwieriger, fuer die Chinesischen Firmen Ideen illegal zu kopieren. I think that this was all for the better - but get your CaDA supercar before they collapse under the heaps of lawsuits that TLG will pile on them. 

When the basic idea of the product is that customers can use it to make their own creations, it would be outlandishly absurd for TLG to even try to file lawsuits against MOC makers, even those who sell instructions for profit. So no, they won't do that, and if they did, that kind of lawsuit would be thrown out of the court sooner than you can say "infringement".

[piterx]

i gotta say something not too popular i believe:

am I the only one who thinks that TLG is TLG and they should be the only ones selling their invention?
I know brands like CADA are cool because they give builders the chance of monetizing on their creations, but still, it kinda upsets me at the same time seeing a brand stealing another brand's idea like that.
Personally I support aftermarket brands such as Buwizz as they provide something that's not a rip-off of somebody else's intellectual property but they add to it.

[TeamThrifty]

35 minutes ago, piterx said:

am I the only one who thinks that TLG is TLG and they should be the only ones selling their invention?

I disagree... I'm a software developer, primarily using the c# language. This language was created by microsoft and is the equivalent of the bricks created by TLG. I'm able to use c# code to create my own software application - it is in fact my career... c# isn't mine and is probably the IP of microsoft, but i can use the 'bricks', and the resulting applications IP belongs to me even though the IP of the individual 'bricks'/code, doesn't.

So TLG group should absolutely protect the IP of their brinks and if anybody reproduces those bricks they should drag them through the courts...

..but using the bricks to create a MOC is a very different thing. Now if you then use that moc to earn money, TLG may take an interest... Indeed, if i produce commercial software from a free version of the development environment is use (visual studio), microsoft could take me to court, so i use a paid-for commercial use version. Lego was just a toy, so no end-user licence agreements exist (unless there is an implicit one?). TLG may review that, and if you're using their platform to monetise it and recreate a business, they may want to stop that - or potentially introduce a fair-use policy for commercial users - and they'd be well within their rights to do that if they chose to. Again, this is common business practice. At the moment producing moc for financial gain is the wild-west... brace yourselves, there may be a new sheriff in town....

[Gimmick]

5 hours ago, TeamThrifty said:

I disagree... I'm a software developer, primarily using the c# language. This language was created by microsoft and is the equivalent of the bricks created by TLG. I'm able to use c# code to create my own software application - it is in fact my career... c# isn't mine and is probably the IP of microsoft, but i can use the 'bricks', and the resulting applications IP belongs to me even though the IP of the individual 'bricks'/code, doesn't.

C# and .NET developing are part of MS' ecosystem-strategy. They profit if there is as much software as possible, that keeps users in this ecosystem.

A trustworthy source (from 1000steine.de, LAN member etc.) said, that a trustworthy source said, that nothing changes. :D Same for other patented parts (like small linear actuator).

So... nothing actually happend. Just some-guy-on-youtube panic :)

In fact, they already have multiple patents and could have already done something but they did not.

Edited September 27, 2021 by Gimmick

[chekitch]

22 hours ago, piterx said:

i gotta say something not too popular i believe:

am I the only one who thinks that TLG is TLG and they should be the only ones selling their invention?
I know brands like CADA are cool because they give builders the chance of monetizing on their creations, but still, it kinda upsets me at the same time seeing a brand stealing another brand's idea like that.
Personally I support aftermarket brands such as Buwizz as they provide something that's not a rip-off of somebody else's intellectual property but they add to it.

The problem with your statement for me is at the same time supporting Buwizz and not supporting CADA. It makes no sense.. 

Not gonna lie, I'm pro CADA because, being poor when I started with technic again, and buying clones for parts for my moc's and lego for show, when I discovered CADA (some generic excavator), I was so happy because I could mix my "real" lego and them to build my moc's, because I could easily separate the bricks after (being visibly different, 100% trying NOT to fool you they are lego) plus I got some nice crossing liftarm bricks that were not available in lego. They are now. Then I got their hub and controller. Similar to Buwizz, but not the same, no extra options like mobile or PS controllers, just a simplistic physical controller and a hub.Just what I wanted. 

I got better financially after that and I never bought a "fake" again, but CADA stayed on their course, didn't steal designs, got some great designers and I am happy to buy their bricks. IMHO it is not Lego vs copycats, it is legit vs copycats and CADA is legit for me.

As for the "orange part". I don't mind Lego going for a patent, they deserve it. But it is kind of weird getting a patent years after you produced it, and even years after some other companies produced it. Really feels like a trap.I'd feel the same if CADA filed the patent for the cross liftarm now..

Had Lego made an option to "subscribe" producers to "lego system", something like @TeamThrifty mentioned MS does with C#, I'd be very much against anyone not paying them a small share. But they got a really "attack" attitude that I don't think benefits anyone..

 

[piterx]

36 minutes ago, chekitch said:

The problem with your statement for me is at the same time supporting Buwizz and not supporting CADA. It makes no sense.. 

Not gonna lie, I'm pro CADA because, being poor when I started with technic again, and buying clones for parts for my moc's and lego for show, when I discovered CADA (some generic excavator), I was so happy because I could mix my "real" lego and them to build my moc's, because I could easily separate the bricks after (being visibly different, 100% trying NOT to fool you they are lego) plus I got some nice crossing liftarm bricks that were not available in lego. They are now. Then I got their hub and controller. Similar to Buwizz, but not the same, no extra options like mobile or PS controllers, just a simplistic physical controller and a hub.Just what I wanted. 

I got better financially after that and I never bought a "fake" again, but CADA stayed on their course, didn't steal designs, got some great designers and I am happy to buy their bricks. IMHO it is not Lego vs copycats, it is legit vs copycats and CADA is legit for me.

As for the "orange part". I don't mind Lego going for a patent, they deserve it. But it is kind of weird getting a patent years after you produced it, and even years after some other companies produced it. Really feels like a trap.I'd feel the same if CADA filed the patent for the cross liftarm now..

Had Lego made an option to "subscribe" producers to "lego system", something like @TeamThrifty mentioned MS does with C#, I'd be very much against anyone not paying them a small share. But they got a really "attack" attitude that I don't think benefits anyone..

 

I kinda agree but at the same time it's just like "i can't afford this videogame so ill buy the copycat of it that's cheaper" it makes sense, but surely it doesn't make sense for the original inventors of something.
Lego invented a whole unique ecosystem wich took decades to develop, they should be the only ones selling it to be honest.

Buwizz is a different thing, they don't copy lego design, they added a more powerful lipo battery to enhance performances, then they made the copy of an old motor that lego doesn't want to produce anymore even if the community wanted it really bad

[amorti]

43 minutes ago, piterx said:

I kinda agree but at the same time it's just like "i can't afford this videogame so ill buy the copycat of it that's cheaper" 

I'll preface this with: Piter, I have the greatest respect for you and what you build. If it gets personal, tell me and I'll quit.

Is it an apt analogy? To buy a pirated copy of an original game? If we're talking about old Lepin sets which were direct and 100% rip-offs, then it would be.

Or in the case of CaDA, is it more apt to compare to that time when Sega demanded $15 licensing fees per cartridge (somewhere around 1/3 of the retail price at the time) to release a game on their console, and EA said FU, we'll do it without licensing, and without breaking any laws?

https://youtu.be/x0qe1FNqtCo

Or is it like saying every (tennis) video game since Pong is a cheap copy, and nobody but Atari should be allowed to make it (without a license).

Or maybe it's entirely incomparable in the building block world, since I'm sure there's no amount of money LEGO would accept to break their monopoly anyway.

But then, this is the best type of toy there is, with a really wide appeal from kids to all ages and all socioeconomic levels of adults, so what options do competitors have? Start a whole new standard based on 7mm instead of 8mm? Or build compatible parts within that system, without breaking any laws?

Edited September 27, 2021 by amorti

[chekitch]

30 minutes ago, piterx said:

I kinda agree but at the same time it's just like "i can't afford this videogame so ill buy the copycat of it that's cheaper" it makes sense, but surely it doesn't make sense for the original inventors of something.
Lego invented a whole unique ecosystem wich took decades to develop, they should be the only ones selling it to be honest.

Buwizz is a different thing, they don't copy lego design, they added a more powerful lipo battery to enhance performances, then they made the copy of an old motor that lego doesn't want to produce anymore even if the community wanted it really bad

It took decades to develop and it made them decades of money, while the patents were on. Most of them are not anymore. It is not like pirating a game, it is like saying every game should stop, because the original game was "pong". And any other game is a copy..

Buwizz is the same, it works with lego, but it isnt lego. The same as CADA. CADA added the cross liftarms, the simple blootooth control with a simple remote the public wanted and Lego didn't want to produce anymore... 

[piterx]

1 minute ago, amorti said:

I'll preface this with: Piter, I have the greatest respect for you and what you build. If it gets personal, tell me and I'll quit.

Is it an apt analogy? To buy a pirated copy of an original game? Of we're talking about old Lepin sets which were direct and 100% rip-offs, then it would be.

Or in the case of CaDA, is it more apt to compare to that time when Sega demanded $15 licensing fees per cartridge (somewhere around 1/3 of the retail price at the time) to release a game on their console, and EA said FU, we'll do it without licensing, and without breaking any laws?

https://youtu.be/x0qe1FNqtCo

Maybe it's entirely inapt in the building block, since world I'm sure there's no amount of money LEGO would accept. But then, this is the best toy there is, and what options do competitors have? Start a whole new standard based on 7mm instead of 8mm? 

I gotta say that i know nothing about laws and how the whole thing works, it is just my point of view about it, I didn't mention a pirated version, it's more like "instead of buying minecraft i buy another game that looks like it". It is legal, it's just a bit meh to me, but after all as long as builders have fun and make great builds it's nobody's concern :D

I can see why Lego could be upset about it tho, that's it :D I'm truly not here to judge anyone!

[chekitch]

6 minutes ago, amorti said:

Maybe it's entirely inapt in the building block, since world I'm sure there's no amount of money LEGO would accept. But then, this is the best toy there is, and what options do competitors have? Start a whole new standard based on 7mm instead of 8mm? 

I think Lego missed the "lepin" moment to change the game. They could have set up the "lego system" subscription, with like 3% of profits if you abide their rules (show the producer on the block, no copies etc..) It would have made them a ton of money on things that weren't even patents anymore, and the companies would have payed, just not to worry about customs...

 

[amorti]

2 minutes ago, piterx said:

"instead of buying minecraft i buy another game that looks like it"

Caution!

I'm certain people could claim that your game is similar to any number of flight simulators.

Also, you didn't develop the platform nor language you develop on.

In this story, I'm pretty sure you're CaDA, not LEGO.

[piterx]

1 minute ago, amorti said:

Caution!

I'm certain people could claim that your game is similar to any number of flight simulators.

Also, you didn't develop the platform nor language you develop on.

In this story, I'm pretty sure you're CaDA, not LEGO.

ahah absolutely true :P 
Unfortunately IP are a field where if you can't protect the base concept then it's just a race at who makes it better :D
If tomorrow Ubisoft comes out with a drone racing game we're kinda screwed lol

[SaperPL]

On 9/24/2021 at 6:25 PM, brunojj1 said:

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.

If we are talking about the principle of operation being the same, then you must end up with similar mechanism if you want it to work similarly (i.e. being able clutch one connection at one position having the second one being in neutral at 90 degree off the first one).

Even if you ware change it into some kind of gear with this driving ring so it's not technically driven by the axle, it's core principle of operation is that you're rotating it to shift the phase at which each clutch around is set.

What I believe should competing companies look for the replace TLG's piece is to use a different type/construction of the gearbox if that's to be clear with the patent. Obviously CVTs are most likely out of the question.

We don't have planetary gears yet - not a complete final drives/portal hubs with integrated planetary gears, but actual system pieces that can be used like other gears. Planetary gear based automatic transmission may or may not be more compact than current approach depending on how much space is required for reliable and system-like clutching separate parts of the planetary gear.

As for what could be a single piece working in current clutch system, I only came up with the idea to have a piece around a worm gear that would drive up to 4 clutches around, but it would drive them in sync. It may be useful when designing a model that is switching functionality for each motors so you can have more stuff with just 4 motors, but I'm not so sure it'd make much sense for a gearbox because all sides would be synced.

 

If you guys get any ideas that have a fair chance of working, I could try designing it as well for print and testing this, but with the assumption that we want a substitute part that's not breaking the original patented concept is trying to square a circle (although some revolutionary ideas are born at such attempts).

Anyway, we're talking gearbox stuff when we don't even have the limited slip differentials...

[Bartybum]

On 9/27/2021 at 7:34 AM, piterx said:

Personally I support aftermarket brands such as Buwizz as they provide something that's not a rip-off of somebody else's intellectual property but they add to it.

What is CaDA stealing?

[amorti]

43 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

What is CaDA stealing?

There's a legitimate argument that they're stealing the whole damned thing. Everything from the 8mm base measurement to 2L pins, the general liftarm concept, etc.

It's a legitimate argument, but there again those patents have long since expired, so now you're into subjective moral arguments. Which get progressively more shaky if you admit that Lego stole the whole building block concept in the first place and everything since that is fruit of the poison tree.

If you admit those primary patents are expired, and we know you can't re-patent an expired patent... What then is patenting part of the system such as a rotary gearbox? Seems like an attempt at blocking competition. Lego saw that big supercars was a profitable market, built an irresistible feature, patented it on its first birthday, told no one, then gradually let it come out of hiding *after* other companies used same technology.

It's sly, at best.

1 hour ago, SaperPL said:

 we don't even have the limited slip differentials...

Same as Lego has "black box" planetary hubs, I'd happily accept a black box LSD or torsen diff. Seems like torsen is more plausible, as LSDs usually rely on clutch plates and springs, and we all known those would be abused to breaking point. But either way, I'd take whatever was offered!

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by amorti

[Gimmick]

4 hours ago, amorti said:

told no one, then gradually let it come out of hiding *after* other companies used same technology.

It's sly, at best.

You are getting lost in theories for which there is no evidence.

[Timorzelorzworz]

On 9/24/2021 at 2:37 PM, kbalage said:

if they wanted or had the legal rights to kill Rebrickable, they could have done it in the past decade as well.

Exactly. Because TLG is dumb enough to kill their own B-models, RB is a big winning platform for TLG. People buying a second or third kit only to build an alternate model, so TLG should never fuc* people building alternates as long the design goes not to a third-party seller.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Timorzelorzworz

[SaperPL]

5 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

Because TLG is dumb enough to kill their own B-models

Dumb enough? No, it's a calculated business move. When Lego did the B-models they had to:

• design main model
• design b-model using the parts from the main model
• optimise both for the parts used so there's no unnecessary overhead of parts (including stuff like stickers)
• design a box that features both main model with some functionality featured and also squeeze in the b-model
• print more manuals

Also at that point they had a single promo video from (or two in a short period of time) from the reviewers.

Now they have to do:

• design main model
• optimise only main model for parts use
• design the box with focus only on the main model (more free real estate)
• print less manuals

Right now they get more coverage spread over longer period of time because they're not killing off the most optimal choice for making a b-model from the parts the kit has.

Let's say the 42123 senna got a high quality b-model that is a racing truck - they now made it so that like dozens of people won't try to make a better truck with limitations of the original set that would make it harder, so all those people will end up with different models overcoming those limitations, but they most likely won't if there's already a b-model of racing truck, and if they did, it may not gain so much traction on the web as making alt model that that is same theme as b-model. So they get now more chances for the set being promoted with this alt model over the web and at the same time they save money on development.

Similarly some "stupid mistakes" like not including a differential in the senna set or not making steering wheel turn, no adding suspension in some builds even if they could - it's product segmentation so if you want more, you need to buy more expensive set, or you need to buy bricks separately and figure out on your own how to add this and I think TLG has calculated that most people spending money will just buy a bigger set at some point. Also if they add such "stupid mistakes" there will be people talking about this and sharing videos on how to fix those mistakes, so again - they save money and get free advertising.

I talked about similar stuff on our local forum when the RC buggy came out last year with the new perpendicular hole liftarms. It's not like CADA came up with this design and TLG just copied it because they have dumb designers who couldn't come up with that on their own. It's that they were forced to catch up at this point because people got those pieces from CADA, but companies that have monopoly(are dominating their market niche) like TLG have shelves full of designs that are not shown to the end user. There's probably a dozen of different differential designs, steering components, wheel rims, gearboxes and so on. Ready and working mechanically if you could 3D print those for example, just there wasn't any necessity to make the mass production tooling so far. I expect a lot of stuff that @efferman designed was designed already by TLG and is just sitting on shelves and in database of internal parts that may be used some day.

Mistakes can happen from time to time, but in a company that's this big, it's most likely calculated.

[Jeroen Ottens]

7 hours ago, SaperPL said:

I talked about similar stuff on our local forum when the RC buggy came out last year with the new perpendicular hole liftarms. It's not like CADA came up with this design and TLG just copied it because they have dumb designers who couldn't come up with that on their own. It's that they were forced to catch up at this point because people got those pieces from CADA, but companies that have monopoly(are dominating their market niche) like TLG have shelves full of designs that are not shown to the end user. There's probably a dozen of different differential designs, steering components, wheel rims, gearboxes and so on. Ready and working mechanically if you could 3D print those for example, just there wasn't any necessity to make the mass production tooling so far. I expect a lot of stuff that @efferman designed was designed already by TLG and is just sitting on shelves and in database of internal parts that may be used some day.

Mistakes can happen from time to time, but in a company that's this big, it's most likely calculated.

I can corroborate on the liftarm parts being on the shelf for some time. They were already around at the end of last century when I worked there. At the time it was deemed they did not fit in 'the system'. They didn't feel right so to say. We didn't have the frames at that time though, so maybe these have paved the way to make the alternating beams fit the system after all.

B-models in my days were just build using the parts we had for the A-model. That was done pretty much at the end of the whole design process. That may have changed (and especially in the case of the Mack I suspect there was a parallel A and B-model development given the quality of that B-model) of course.

[Aleh]

On 9/24/2021 at 3:23 PM, keymaker said:

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

They should be afraid of selling the license of their moc.

[JaBaCaDaBra]

Are you really telling that an contruction toy company will not allow to construct something with their toy?

[keymaker]

2 hours ago, Aleh said:

They should be afraid of selling the license of their moc.

Nah...I don't think so.