The patent application looks like a wish-list to me. But BlueRail’s locomotive board is very similar to what I am doing that started (first disclosed) here: http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine...th-Locomotive-Transceiver&highlight=bluetooth on 7 Nov 2013. Bob
I PDF with drawings here : http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140360399.pdf. Bob
Prior Art Their filing date was June 3, 2014. I suppose if you could prove that your idea is sufficiently similar to theirs and that yours was described prior to their filing date, you might be able to prevent a patent from being issued. Steve S
I could show that there is very similar “prior art” before June 3, 2014. The big problem is: “The present application claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/833,500, filed on Jun. 11, 2013, and entitled ELECTRIC TRAIN BLUETOOTH SMART READY DEVICE INTERFACE, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.” This provisional application does not seem to be available on the web. Bob
Really it comes down to how they are doing this. You can't patent the idea of radio control trains. Plenty of people have been doing radio control trains in other scales anyway. It comes down to actual design. Is their design like yours? what is unique about either of the designs? Maybe they both are just copies of what is already being done. In the case of what I saw online of your design. All you have are specifications. I don't know about a preliminary patent, but a patent requires an actual design of the working product. If you are actually trying to make a sellable product, I wouldn't be on here asking questions, I would consult with a law firm. A law firm will give you a free consultation. I did it before with a flexible wire concept I had.
You missed a good bit. I am doing open-source (as in not-for-profit and not-for-sale). Also the second version of a DBTC locomotive is in the process of being assembly, and will probably be completed in a month or so. Bob
Well then I doubt their patent has any influence on what you are doing. he he yeah, I was skimming and trying to catch up on this discussion. Are you on this forum? http://www.freerails.com/view_forum.php?id=45
Unfortunately, just the words “patent pending” on the product announcement of the major manufacturer, as made it difficult to get the first DBTC locomotive hardware produced (even with the offer of some seed money). No. I already have more than enough on my plate. Bob
What are your intentions? So many have done so very much to help grow the hobby through submitting enhancements to be shared by all. A great example is JMRI and many other open source venues.
I will gather information on “prior art” for somebody(s) possible future battle, and continue with DBTC. [If this becomes a patent, I will in all probability be long gone before all the legal arguments are completed.] The real question is what the powers-in-the-hobby (JMRI, NMRA, Manufactures, Influential-users, ..) will do? Are hobbyists going to be happy to only be able to buy this kind of product for one company (and other companies that they may let license this technology)? In other words BlueRail controls the standard(s) and everybody dances to their tune for better or worse (as in Microsoft). Bob
I suspect that the only real money from this patent will be made by the patent-attorneys and any companies that use it to put “patent pending” on their products to stifle competing products. Bob
From what I can see, your project uses bluetooth whereas the other project uses bluetooth smart, which are fairly unrelated protocols. It doesn't seem you would be crossing paths much or that your projects would affect one another much.
Yes, but there are much bigger longer-range issues involved that some manufacturers would prefer that the hobby looses site-of. If I was not every interested in the future of the hobby, I wouldn’t be doing DBTC. I am too old (70s) to get much use out of a DBTC layout. What I am currently doing would be just the first-version-locomotive-controller of a successful open-interface (& hopfully an open-source) DBTC layout. The DBTC accessory-controller would use Bluetooth-smart and future versions of the DBTC locomotive-controller would as well. It will not take very long for Bluetooth-smart to be the only available and viable choose for new hardware/firmware. There is also the current problem, which is getting someone to manufacture the first DBTC boards. What manufacture wants to invest in an inventory that can possible be tied up in a long and costly patent dispute? I know because I have been told this by an unmanned reputable DCC decoder board manufacturer. The only reason the Bluetooth-smart hardware/firmware is not being used in the first-version-locomotive-controller is to reduce the initial investment costs. Bob
Thank you! I had forgotten about this forum. There information on this site that will help in any possible future litigation. Bob
I think you're letting frustration get the best of you. Litigation like you are talking about is what makes this hobby ugly. Just develop your idea and let it take root. If it's a good one people will gravitate towards it.
Don’t worry; I will not be doing any litigation except to protect myself from a frivolous litigation. I am just doing all I can to legally get my first-version-locomotive-controller boards produced, by reducing the risk to the manufacturer, and to also keep the door open for open-interface DBTC. Bob
