Chinese Knockoffs Roam U.S. Streets

[Gihgehls]

Originally Posted by airdale

and why should you care? Are you not the one who only cares about capitalism and you get your product as cheap as possible? Not trying to be harsh but you could care less as long as you get what you want cheap....?

Because I am a curious and scientifically-minded person? Been Koolaid-free for several years now.

[dale@thecoys.net]

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

Because I am a curious and scientifically-minded person? Been Koolaid-free for several years now.

Understood. It's quite possible to search through the database of patents, to see what Segway has patented. I just don't happen to have the time to do that right now.

[JW Hunter]

It would probably be much simpler to just get a copy of the lawsuit...it's public now that it's filed

[dale@thecoys.net]

Yes. From http://www.itcblog.com/segway-files-...l-transporters

The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the "Proposed Respondents") unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain personal transporters, components thereof, and manuals relating thereto that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,789,640 (the '640 patent); 7,275,607 (the '607 patent); D551,722 (the '722 patent); and D551,592 (the '592 patent) (collectively, the "asserted patents") and U.S. Copyright Reg. No. TX 7-800-563 (the "asserted copyright"):

.....

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to various control functions of the Segway Personal Transporter that ensure safety and enjoyment for the user, as well as various ornamental features of Segway's unique transporter designs. In particular, the '640 patent relates to methods and apparatuses for yaw (or turning) control of a balancing transporter while maintaining the safe balance of the transporter. The '607 patent relates to improved controllers for a transporter. The '722 and '592 patents are design patents that relate to an ornamental design for a personal transporter. Lastly, the asserted copyright relates to Segway's creative expression embodied in manuals for its personal transporters.

(for more, follow the link)

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

I wonder, is it possible for another company to create what is legally considered an EPAMD.

"(46.04.1695) "Electric personal assistive mobility device"
(EPAMD) means a self-balancing device with two wheels not in
tandem, designed to transport only one person by an electric
propulsion system with an average power of seven hundred fifty
watts (one horsepower) having a maximum speed on a paved level
surface, when powered solely by such a propulsion system while
ridden by an operator weighing one hundred seventy pounds, of less
than twenty miles per hour. "

Is it possible for another company to create an EPAMD without infringing?

Is it possible to create a device that complies with your paragraph above that does not infringe? OF COURSE!

It could have two wheels and comply with all the above, yet be a seated device, that uses a joystick for controls, instead of your balance. It would still be self balancing, but the controls would be different. No infringement.

I believe this question is designed to spur conversation and controversy, especially considering some previous statements in support of some of the copy cat machines. It seems a bit trollish to me.

The lawsuit, as described in this thread (I have no more information, nor do I care to spend any time to research any more) alleges that some specific controls and mechanisms were copied. I say let the lawyers argue it, and let the truth win out!

We can play word games all we like, but most of us on this thread and this forum already call them knock offs and copies of segways. It seems odd that we would call them that, and then say that the Segway Inc. does not have the right to consider them knock offs and copies of segways as well.

[dale@thecoys.net]

Originally Posted by Gihgehls

I wonder, is it possible for another company to create what is legally considered an EPAMD.

Gee, I just thought it was another dumb question.

...but it did cause me to do some interesting research.

[Gihgehls]

Originally Posted by KSagal

Is it possible to create a device that complies with your paragraph above that does not infringe? OF COURSE!

It could have two wheels and comply with all the above, yet be a seated device, that uses a joystick for controls, instead of your balance. It would still be self balancing, but the controls would be different. No infringement.

I believe this question is designed to spur conversation and controversy, especially considering some previous statements in support of some of the copy cat machines. It seems a bit trollish to me.

The lawsuit, as described in this thread (I have no more information, nor do I care to spend any time to research any more) alleges that some specific controls and mechanisms were copied. I say let the lawyers argue it, and let the truth win out!

We can play word games all we like, but most of us on this thread and this forum already call them knock offs and copies of segways. It seems odd that we would call them that, and then say that the Segway Inc. does not have the right to consider them knock offs and copies of segways as well.

The purpose of my question was to spark a conversation that leads all the participants to the truth.