Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hdevalence 1237 days ago
Unfortunately for those who care about noise reduction, LL patented the design, preventing its widespread use.
1 comments

This seems to be the patent in question:

"Claims:

1. Toroidal propeller comprising: a hub supporting a plurality of elongate propeller elements in which a tip of a leading propeller element curves into contact with a trailing propeller element to form a closed structure with increased stiffness and reduced acoustic signature.

2. The toroidal propeller of claim 1 having two or more propeller elements."

That's it. Honestly, that's pretty easy to get around, even without arguing against its validity from prior art in the submarine world.

How would you get around it? Sounds fairly solidly written to me.
The fun thing is just going word by word and thinking up alternatives. So...

Toroidal: - What adjacent shapes will provide similar efficiency without technically being a toroid?

Hub: - Can we connect it to a "shaft" instead? - What about adding a gearbox in between?

Tip connection: - This specifically calls out connecting the tip of a leading propeller to a trailing body. This is where I'd probably focus first. Can you reverse it to connect a trailing propeller element to a leading element? Do you connect them back to the hub instead? What about a secondary/tertiary element?

Patents are more of a threat than a firm legal protection. A large company can tie up a small business in court until they're bankrupt, so it's really a matter of cost/benefit and how close you want to get to the fire you're playing with.

So basically the rules are, manufacturing in America is about lawyering patents, playing with fire, and being threatened by big companies who can bankrupt you whether you're copying their ideas or not. No wonder China is pulling ahead.
Patent law was mediocre idea turned into atrocity by lawyers. It just stifles the progress at each step with being "beneficial" only to big enough corporations that can brute force the system with lawyers
I disagree. Patents are a good idea and mostly aren't that bad (you mainly hear about the bad ones).

This one seems like a solid idea worthy of some reward.

I think the patent system does need some tweaks but other than that it's not too bad overall:

* Software patents need a shorter term than 20 years. Maybe 10.

* It needs to be way easier to invalidate patents after they have been granted using prior art.

* Ideally they would simplify the crazy language in patents so they are easier to read. Do we really need to put "plurality" in every other sentence?

Perhaps if your design does not improve stiffness? The way it’s phrased suggest that that is a necessary part of the design.
I don't see how you could use this design without it improving stiffness. And that isn't really a workaround - you're giving up half the benefits of doing it in the first place!
Something other than a toroid? Maybe an 8 shape?