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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
It seems like a nice step up from the current Segways.
A lot of work must be done in making these socially acceptable. Segway definitely failed at that. I think Toyota has the capital and brand to take it to the next level.
Hopefully they put the resources towards it because I'd like to see what happens with this.
I agree. The "stick" version actually makes the Segway look cool. The no-hands version moves pretty well, although it kind of looks like a ThighMaster on wheels.
C'mon Toyota! Still waiting for my hover wing like the Hobgoblin had!
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/...
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. :)