5 ms·

The car-driving thing would only count if Knight Rider included details about exactly how the automation works. The Donald Duck comic was pretty specific about

by jff 16y ago

The car-driving thing would only count if Knight Rider included details about exactly how the automation works. The Donald Duck comic was pretty specific about exactly what was going on: they were feeding ping-pong balls down a tube into a submerged ship until the boyancy of the balls raised the ship. Knight Rider and friends just say "Hey what if there was a car that could drive itself? Let's make a show about that car fighting crime." Same way (to use another 80s show) MacGuyver doesn't have prior art on the idea of blowing stuff up with improvised materials.

noonespecial 16y ago
So Kitt would have to be a software patent then?
Semiapies 16y ago
The actual invention didn't use ping-pong balls, nor was it being presented as a feasible solution to a real-world problem any more than Donald Duck filling a car's tires with helium is presenting a serious design for a flying car. It's a cartoony gag. Invention requires more than, "I bet you could make an X by doing Y." It requires actually getting something to work. It's not writing, it's engineering.
- eru 16y ago
  You can define inventions that way. But that does not mean that the patent process requires something that fits your definition.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    That would be much of my point in my first post, now wouldn't it?
    - eru 16y ago
      Indeed.
- Natsu 16y ago
  > Invention requires more than, "I bet you could make an X by doing Y." It requires actually getting something to work. It's not writing, it's engineering. Yeah, but patents don't, at least, judging by what gets accepted these days. The patent on using a stick as a dog toy took four years, two prior patents and a reexamination request from the head of the USPTO to get invalidated after being issued.
- Someone 16y ago
  If someone applies for a patent "to float a sunken ship using ping poll balls", you are free to float a ship using air balloons, plastic globes that aren't ping pong balls, etc. Without infringing on that patent. Similarly, you could use ping pong balls for lifting a sunken air plane without infringing on that patent. That is why patents are written in very generic terms. Given such a very narrowly specified talent, you can get a patent on these alternative solutions of the problem if the 'invention' is deemed a non-trivial variation on an existing prior art. For example, I would think that using an inflatable air bag, inflating it after inserting it into the vessel, could be a patentable variation on this theme. I think freezing the water in and around a sunken ship to float it definitely would be patentable, even though it is based on the same idea (replacing the water in the ship by something lighter than water) [and yes, it isn't practical, either, but that does not prevent it from being patentable]

by jff 16y ago

noonespecial 16y ago

So Kitt would have to be a software patent then?

Semiapies 16y ago

The actual invention didn't use ping-pong balls, nor was it being presented as a feasible solution to a real-world problem any more than Donald Duck filling a car's tires with helium is presenting a serious design for a flying car. It's a cartoony gag. Invention requires more than, "I bet you could make an X by doing Y." It requires actually getting something to work. It's not writing, it's engineering.

eru 16y ago
You can define inventions that way. But that does not mean that the patent process requires something that fits your definition.
- Semiapies 16y ago
  That would be much of my point in my first post, now wouldn't it?
  - eru 16y ago
    Indeed.
Natsu 16y ago
> Invention requires more than, "I bet you could make an X by doing Y." It requires actually getting something to work. It's not writing, it's engineering. Yeah, but patents don't, at least, judging by what gets accepted these days. The patent on using a stick as a dog toy took four years, two prior patents and a reexamination request from the head of the USPTO to get invalidated after being issued.
Someone 16y ago
If someone applies for a patent "to float a sunken ship using ping poll balls", you are free to float a ship using air balloons, plastic globes that aren't ping pong balls, etc. Without infringing on that patent. Similarly, you could use ping pong balls for lifting a sunken air plane without infringing on that patent. That is why patents are written in very generic terms. Given such a very narrowly specified talent, you can get a patent on these alternative solutions of the problem if the 'invention' is deemed a non-trivial variation on an existing prior art. For example, I would think that using an inflatable air bag, inflating it after inserting it into the vessel, could be a patentable variation on this theme. I think freezing the water in and around a sunken ship to float it definitely would be patentable, even though it is based on the same idea (replacing the water in the ship by something lighter than water) [and yes, it isn't practical, either, but that does not prevent it from being patentable]