B&G patents - what does it mean for rusEfi?

[AndreyB]

http://www.google.com/patents/US7313474
http://www.google.com/patents/US7369933
http://www.google.com/patents/US7421329

On the one hand they have their schematics in the patents, on the other hand they have really vague
"The present invention provides an engine controller that is: more cost effective because of its low parts count due to integrated technology; simpler to install because of its generic design and flexible software, allowing it to be used with all models and makes of engines from motorcycles to trucks, even or odd number of cylinders, and regardless of the experience of the end user. The design is also more reliable because of several software algorithms that will be described."

Is there a chance of these patents becoming an issue for rusEfi? Does B&G have a record of going after anyone but their clones?

[AndreyB]

Just some random links regarding patents in general:
http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/2624/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data/Patent%20Opposition%20US.pdf

No fee is required for the submission of citations

Also
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2215.html
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e316217
and "Only a patent owner requester can establish micro entity status."

[Nobody]

And this is what is wrong with patent office… B&G patents are only good for “patent trolls” that threaten litigation for an out of court settlement. The patents should have never been published/granted because there is nothing new or novel, simply put, technical merit was never evaluated (why patent office is broken).

Look at http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MM912_P812 Freescale ECU on a chip… Sure simpler than B&G, but limited to 1 or 2 cylinder engines… I’d ignore anything B&G (including fluff patents) because merits are lacking. I’m not even sure how this patent can be enforced, many OEMs are doing what B&G described and been doing so way before patent was issued.

Last thought, if concerned about design, then don’t publish anything and consider it IP… China cares less about patents and trademarks as do many other countries - this is for real and legitimate ones.

So in short, means nothing to rusEFI. Now if there was something new and novel, then it would be a different story... B&G barely got to ~1988 technology threshold from a functionality standpoint.

[abecedarian]

If Toyota, Chrysler, Nissan, Ford, Mitsubishi/Kia/Hyundai, GM, VW, BMW, Daimler and others do not have a problem using one ECU across multiple vehicles with varying engine configurations...
... which would infringe on B&G's patent for a configurable platform supporting multiple, random, engine configurations ...
... B&G code and hardware are based on multiple SAE, IEEE and ISO standards and chip manufacturer reference designs ...
... and don't forget Holley and others have been doing EFI conversions since before B&G made one that worked ...
... and you happen to arrive at a similar solution without using B&G hardware or source code ...

... why should you worry about it?

B&G are using a 10+ year old processor, sometimes two of them even, and you're using something relatively new. Keep that in mind.