5 ms·

If the original patent was November 1972, then surely it had long-since expired by 1997, which then begs the question of why it was necessary that: "In 1997, Ai

If the original patent was November 1972, then surely it had long-since expired by 1997, which then begs the question of why it was necessary that: "In 1997, Airtrax Incorporated and several other companies each paid the US Navy $2,500 for rights to the technology" Is there something about US patents not mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_S... ?

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
I'd expect it's a submarine, which are mentioned in the page you link, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent -- largely only a thing in the USA's former first to invent system AFAIK.
cromulent 9y ago
It seems there is some complexity and other patents involved. From their SB2 form: A form of our Omni-Directional technology was originally patented in 1973 and was sold to the US Navy. We secured a transfer of this technology from the Navy in 1996 under the terms of a CRADA agreement (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) and we have worked since that time to commercialize Omni-Directional products. We received 3 patents regarding the "redesign" of the wheel. In addition, we have a license agreements for the algorithms used to control vehicular movement, and a patent for this technology has been applied for. (...) The patent for the Omni-Directional wheel expired in 1990. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081372/000101376207000731/formsb2.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081372/000101376207...
homero 9y ago
Probably improvements later on
SolarNet 9y ago
If I describe an API and the algorithm used to implement it (a patent) that doesn't necessarily mean the source code I used isn't still useful (a copyright). They were paying for the Navy's implementation of the technology - a bunch of copyrighted notes, drawings, and details - rather than starting from scratch. They were not paying for the idea of the technology (because the patent had expired).

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

I'd expect it's a submarine, which are mentioned in the page you link, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent -- largely only a thing in the USA's former first to invent system AFAIK.

cromulent 9y ago

It seems there is some complexity and other patents involved. From their SB2 form: A form of our Omni-Directional technology was originally patented in 1973 and was sold to the US Navy. We secured a transfer of this technology from the Navy in 1996 under the terms of a CRADA agreement (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) and we have worked since that time to commercialize Omni-Directional products. We received 3 patents regarding the "redesign" of the wheel. In addition, we have a license agreements for the algorithms used to control vehicular movement, and a patent for this technology has been applied for. (...) The patent for the Omni-Directional wheel expired in 1990. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081372/000101376207000731/formsb2.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081372/000101376207...

homero 9y ago

Probably improvements later on

SolarNet 9y ago

If I describe an API and the algorithm used to implement it (a patent) that doesn't necessarily mean the source code I used isn't still useful (a copyright). They were paying for the Navy's implementation of the technology - a bunch of copyrighted notes, drawings, and details - rather than starting from scratch. They were not paying for the idea of the technology (because the patent had expired).