5 ms·

Very cool, especially the video of the hands-free gracefulness. The small size is also cool, but I suspect these research/demo models have terrible battery lif

by 13ren 18y ago

Very cool, especially the video of the hands-free gracefulness. The small size is also cool, but I suspect these research/demo models have terrible battery life... EDIT it gives 3 miles, at 3.7 mph http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/01/financial/f082734D47.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/01/... bet: they pay no patent royalties to Segway. Also, why not have a seat on them? Seems like so much work, having to stand all the time. :)

notauser 18y ago
If you want hands-free and FAST then Exkate sells electric skateboards that do 20 miles an hour over a 12 mile range.
noonespecial 18y ago
bet: they pay no patent royalties to Segway. Hardware is actually vastly more difficult to patent than software. As its explained to me, you can't just patent "a two wheeled balancing scooter" the same way you seem to have been able to patent "buying stuff, but on the interwebs!" You have to patent novel gear systems, a unique balancing system. (Balance is actually a very simple 3 term formula that can be made without even a computer using just a few $0.14 op amps. I'm sure Segway has added considerable flair to this well known concept.) With mechanical systems, there are literally hundreds of years of prior art. Toyota couldn't make a scooter that looks just like a segway, but they'll have no problems with a two wheeled balancing scooter. (Provided a teardown doesn't reveal a "borrowed" circuit board or gear train.) I'm not generally a big fan of the patent system as it operates today but I think its still quite functional in the mechanical device area. Segway spent a lot of time setting up a good gear/motor/balance system. They should be protected from somebody just pulling it apart and making castings of the internals to produce a cheap knockoff. They should not be able to prevent some one else from doing their own engineering to produce a competing scooter.
- 13ren 18y ago
  I agree: don't make the concept/idea patentable, only the specific implementation. The specific light bulb; the specific telegraphy system. OTOH, I kinda like the idea of Segway owning the concept - it was a cool idea, and a lot of work to pull it off. But I don't like the world that owning concepts so generally would create. I think it's good to encourage many people to search for ways to do it, and they get to own what they find. If someone finds the best way, they win big. I think that's great. I find it interesting that Morse's original patent seemed pretty much along the lines you say - but then, several years later, he tried to amend it to cover any way of accomplishing telegraphy. The courts upheld the original, but not the amendment (if memory serves). The amendment seems to be the style of patenting software today. I see no reason, in principle, why patent law can not operate in the same way in the software world as it does for mechanical systems - despite software being more abstract.
  - noonespecial 18y ago
    I think that software patents have failed us because code is still magic to the USPO. One computer that, for example, calculates large prime numbers looks exactly like another that does the same. The patent system considers the one a copy of the other, It cannot understand that there are radically different ways to calculate large primes. In short they actually don't understand software at all and try to treat computers like gear filled machines.
    - 13ren 18y ago
      You're right. In a sense, that's also true of comp sci academics and professionals. The field isn't a disciplined field (unlike mechanics). I think it's partly immaturity (mechanics is older); partly massive opportunity (everyone just reinvents everything); and partly the mathematical nature of comp sci... In my research, I've seen mathematical models reinvented with different technologies a decade later: e.g. first SGML and OODBMS; now XML and Java. The later writers are unaware of the earlier writers. There's very little knowledge of what's been published. It's hard to find, and hard to recognize because of different terminology. It can be very hard to recognize in a deeper sense, whether two domains (and algorithms operating on them) are actually equivalent (e.g. languages recognized by automata vs. languages generated by regular expressions). BTW: Ken Thompson patented his method for searching with regular expressions (expired 1988). http://www.google.com/patents?id=Cx9xAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=3568156#PPA5,M1 http://www.google.com/patents?id=Cx9xAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a... As far as understanding the fundamentals of computer science, I think we are very poor at it - much of the mathematics is about very simple and basic stuff (though the mathematics itself is usually not so simple...). Mechanics can also be described by mathematics - arguably, is mathematics in a sense. I don't think that being mathematical is a killer for computer science patents.

by 13ren 18y ago

notauser 18y ago

If you want hands-free and FAST then Exkate sells electric skateboards that do 20 miles an hour over a 12 mile range.

noonespecial 18y ago

bet: they pay no patent royalties to Segway. Hardware is actually vastly more difficult to patent than software. As its explained to me, you can't just patent "a two wheeled balancing scooter" the same way you seem to have been able to patent "buying stuff, but on the interwebs!" You have to patent novel gear systems, a unique balancing system. (Balance is actually a very simple 3 term formula that can be made without even a computer using just a few $0.14 op amps. I'm sure Segway has added considerable flair to this well known concept.) With mechanical systems, there are literally hundreds of years of prior art. Toyota couldn't make a scooter that looks just like a segway, but they'll have no problems with a two wheeled balancing scooter. (Provided a teardown doesn't reveal a "borrowed" circuit board or gear train.) I'm not generally a big fan of the patent system as it operates today but I think its still quite functional in the mechanical device area. Segway spent a lot of time setting up a good gear/motor/balance system. They should be protected from somebody just pulling it apart and making castings of the internals to produce a cheap knockoff. They should not be able to prevent some one else from doing their own engineering to produce a competing scooter.

13ren 18y ago
I agree: don't make the concept/idea patentable, only the specific implementation. The specific light bulb; the specific telegraphy system. OTOH, I kinda like the idea of Segway owning the concept - it was a cool idea, and a lot of work to pull it off. But I don't like the world that owning concepts so generally would create. I think it's good to encourage many people to search for ways to do it, and they get to own what they find. If someone finds the best way, they win big. I think that's great. I find it interesting that Morse's original patent seemed pretty much along the lines you say - but then, several years later, he tried to amend it to cover any way of accomplishing telegraphy. The courts upheld the original, but not the amendment (if memory serves). The amendment seems to be the style of patenting software today. I see no reason, in principle, why patent law can not operate in the same way in the software world as it does for mechanical systems - despite software being more abstract.
- noonespecial 18y ago
  I think that software patents have failed us because code is still magic to the USPO. One computer that, for example, calculates large prime numbers looks exactly like another that does the same. The patent system considers the one a copy of the other, It cannot understand that there are radically different ways to calculate large primes. In short they actually don't understand software at all and try to treat computers like gear filled machines.
  - 13ren 18y ago
    You're right. In a sense, that's also true of comp sci academics and professionals. The field isn't a disciplined field (unlike mechanics). I think it's partly immaturity (mechanics is older); partly massive opportunity (everyone just reinvents everything); and partly the mathematical nature of comp sci... In my research, I've seen mathematical models reinvented with different technologies a decade later: e.g. first SGML and OODBMS; now XML and Java. The later writers are unaware of the earlier writers. There's very little knowledge of what's been published. It's hard to find, and hard to recognize because of different terminology. It can be very hard to recognize in a deeper sense, whether two domains (and algorithms operating on them) are actually equivalent (e.g. languages recognized by automata vs. languages generated by regular expressions). BTW: Ken Thompson patented his method for searching with regular expressions (expired 1988). http://www.google.com/patents?id=Cx9xAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=3568156#PPA5,M1 http://www.google.com/patents?id=Cx9xAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a... As far as understanding the fundamentals of computer science, I think we are very poor at it - much of the mathematics is about very simple and basic stuff (though the mathematics itself is usually not so simple...). Mechanics can also be described by mathematics - arguably, is mathematics in a sense. I don't think that being mathematical is a killer for computer science patents.