4 ms·

I hope the Arducopter community takes note of this algorithm and puts it in future builds. Arducopter is in my opinion the best flight control board for multico

I hope the Arducopter community takes note of this algorithm and puts it in future builds. Arducopter is in my opinion the best flight control board for multicopters. By the way I'm building a community to help RC builders show off their builds. Take a look at some of the vehicles here http://www.rcbinder.com/vehicles http://www.rcbinder.com/vehicles . This is my latest build http://www.rcbinder.com/vehicles/aphid-quad http://www.rcbinder.com/vehicles/aphid-quad

pjc50 13y ago
The article says "patent pending", so they'll have to come up with a different one :(
- npsimons 13y ago
  As an aside, the IEEE is in favor of software patents, which is why I'm currently boycotting them and not a member.
  - btown 13y ago
    To be fair, the IEEE primarily represents researchers (in industry and academia) who spend many years developing unique algorithms that, if any software is deserving of a patent, would be the most deserving. I don't think anyone's in favor of the existence of "swipe to unlock" type software patents.
    - dublinben 13y ago
      The owners of the "swipe to unlock" patent certainly are in favor of its existence. Everyone always wants the law to specifically protect them, not those other guys.
- Crito 13y ago
  Patents have not prevented open source implementations of heavily patented audio and video formats. You just need developers and users who are willing to disregard the patents.
- bullfight 13y ago
  Can you really patent the implementation of PID algorithm? There isn't really anything novel about the fact that it is on quadracopter platform as opposed to any other control system other than it seems to be well executed, fast, and effective.
- TheCraiggers 13y ago
  Well, just because they've filed for a patent, doesn't mean that it will be granted. SNORT HAHAHAHA... ok, sorry. But seriously, even if a patent has been applied for, does that automatically mean everyone else has to stop using it? I don't think that's how it works just based on how easily a process like that could be abused. In reality they should have a few years before it becomes a legit patent right? A lot of things can change in that amount of time.
  - jccooper 13y ago
    Not a lawyer, but based on the following resources, one can say... http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-29 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni... A patent generally does not protect until it has been issued. However: http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2006/warren01.aspx http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2006/warren01.aspx 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) provides "provisional patent rights", namely a "reasonable royalty" after the patent is published (usually 12-18 mos after application) but before it is issued (from 1-30? years). But you do have to have "actual notice" that you are infringing to be infringing, which probably means a notice from the patent applier. (Though if they can prove you watched a YouTube video demonstrating the patent and which said it was patent pending, that'd probably work too.) So: someone can notify you that you're infringing on a patent in progress, and you have to guess whether or not it will get granted and in what form. Though the answer is unlikely to be "denied", it's quite possible for the claims to mutate tremendously. If you keep going and it gets granted, you've a lawsuit on your hands with liability from date of notice, not date of grant. Fun! Feel free then, to infringe on any patent that has been described by the applicant but not yet been published by the USPTO. After that, you've got until they catch you (though that's a dangerous game: you're only a friendly jury away from trouble, as the law on "notice" seems not entirely settled.) What a great system, eh?
    - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
      I've just scanned your post, it appears largely correct. However you're generally allowed to use the teaching of a patent for personal - non-commercial - use, for research and such. Though in US law it seems non-commercial/experimental isn't a complete mitigation as it is elsewhere.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  As long as you don't use it commercially you're able to [personally] exploit the teachings of a patent document. It's part of the patent deal. Edit: a brief check on the current US situation shows it's been eroded dramatically and that, like the copyright contract, the patent contract has become a far weaker deal for the public.
miahi 13y ago
Something like this is already implemented in some systems, like WooKong-M from DJI[1]. I'm not sure if it can handle also quadrotors or if it's a hexarotor implementation only. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNdzBRNNkAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNdzBRNNkAw
btgeekboy 13y ago
Neat site, though some of the links appear to not work. Ex: http://www.rcbinder.com/vehicles/piper-pawnee http://www.rcbinder.com/vehicles/piper-pawnee gives me a generic error message. ("We're sorry, but something went wrong.")

pjc50 13y ago

The article says "patent pending", so they'll have to come up with a different one :(

npsimons 13y ago
As an aside, the IEEE is in favor of software patents, which is why I'm currently boycotting them and not a member.
- btown 13y ago
  To be fair, the IEEE primarily represents researchers (in industry and academia) who spend many years developing unique algorithms that, if any software is deserving of a patent, would be the most deserving. I don't think anyone's in favor of the existence of "swipe to unlock" type software patents.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    The owners of the "swipe to unlock" patent certainly are in favor of its existence. Everyone always wants the law to specifically protect them, not those other guys.
Crito 13y ago
Patents have not prevented open source implementations of heavily patented audio and video formats. You just need developers and users who are willing to disregard the patents.
bullfight 13y ago
Can you really patent the implementation of PID algorithm? There isn't really anything novel about the fact that it is on quadracopter platform as opposed to any other control system other than it seems to be well executed, fast, and effective.
TheCraiggers 13y ago
Well, just because they've filed for a patent, doesn't mean that it will be granted. SNORT HAHAHAHA... ok, sorry. But seriously, even if a patent has been applied for, does that automatically mean everyone else has to stop using it? I don't think that's how it works just based on how easily a process like that could be abused. In reality they should have a few years before it becomes a legit patent right? A lot of things can change in that amount of time.
- jccooper 13y ago
  Not a lawyer, but based on the following resources, one can say... http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-29 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerni... A patent generally does not protect until it has been issued. However: http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2006/warren01.aspx http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2006/warren01.aspx 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) provides "provisional patent rights", namely a "reasonable royalty" after the patent is published (usually 12-18 mos after application) but before it is issued (from 1-30? years). But you do have to have "actual notice" that you are infringing to be infringing, which probably means a notice from the patent applier. (Though if they can prove you watched a YouTube video demonstrating the patent and which said it was patent pending, that'd probably work too.) So: someone can notify you that you're infringing on a patent in progress, and you have to guess whether or not it will get granted and in what form. Though the answer is unlikely to be "denied", it's quite possible for the claims to mutate tremendously. If you keep going and it gets granted, you've a lawsuit on your hands with liability from date of notice, not date of grant. Fun! Feel free then, to infringe on any patent that has been described by the applicant but not yet been published by the USPTO. After that, you've got until they catch you (though that's a dangerous game: you're only a friendly jury away from trouble, as the law on "notice" seems not entirely settled.) What a great system, eh?
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    I've just scanned your post, it appears largely correct. However you're generally allowed to use the teaching of a patent for personal - non-commercial - use, for research and such. Though in US law it seems non-commercial/experimental isn't a complete mitigation as it is elsewhere.
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
As long as you don't use it commercially you're able to [personally] exploit the teachings of a patent document. It's part of the patent deal. Edit: a brief check on the current US situation shows it's been eroded dramatically and that, like the copyright contract, the patent contract has become a far weaker deal for the public.

miahi 13y ago

Something like this is already implemented in some systems, like WooKong-M from DJI[1]. I'm not sure if it can handle also quadrotors or if it's a hexarotor implementation only. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNdzBRNNkAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNdzBRNNkAw

btgeekboy 13y ago

Neat site, though some of the links appear to not work. Ex: http://www.rcbinder.com/vehicles/piper-pawnee http://www.rcbinder.com/vehicles/piper-pawnee gives me a generic error message. ("We're sorry, but something went wrong.")