I meant current toothbrushes having vibration electric motors.

It’s happened to me, kinda (a program I wrote ended up on a CD distributed with a magazine; the application was described on the cover and seemed to be used to sell the magazine – the app was free) … although it’s a bummer, you kind of have to expect this when you give away your ideas. I think they absolutely should have given inspiration credit, as a sign of respect, but it’s only something you can hope for, not demand.

Actually, we at Dorkbot Alba posted a video of a toothbrush-driven robot two days before the EMSL BristleBot post!

So they heard about something on the internet and copied it. How is that any different than hackaday re:instructables?

I’m wondering if there would be space to put two phone motors on there and a smd microcontroller and a few mosfets for motor control – then you could program it to be a real micro-bot.

The noise from the motors might be a problem, and keeping the circuit tiny could be hard, but it sounds doable.

free advertizeing .. say HEY I MADE THAT and let everyone learn on someone elses work

Sniff. There I’m over it. Lets reserve the vast indignation for the almost relevant semi-innocuous not-so-important stuff eh?

This is pretty clearly a case of klutz being legally in the right but morally very wrong. You can’t copyright an idea (vibe motor on toothbrush head), only the expression of an idea (article or book about it). You can’t copyright a name, and it’s unlikely emsl registered it as a trade mark. And while emsl could probably have patented it, it would have been expensive and pointless and still wouldn’t protect them from someone else writing a book about how to build it. so legally all clear, but still jerkwads for not crediting the source, and deserving all the ridicule they might receive for doing it.

@localroger

If EMSL even went as far as to say “Bristlebot ™” anywhere, it would be protected. One does not need to register a trademark, except to document its existence. If you can prove reasonably that you called ‘dibs’ on the name first, then you can protect your trademark. Much like a copyright doesn’t have to be registered in order to be valid.

If this idea was ripped or converged upon, it happened more than once. A book published in 1988 in Soviet Union called “From Idea To Prototype” (“От идеи до модели”) detailed some interesting hobby projects, one of which was very similar to a bristlebot.

I Googled around and found some relevant content. The following links are in Russian, but can be translated with Babelfish.

Some relevant content from the book may be found here:
“http://igrushka.kz/vip26/kostan.shtml”
“http://igrushka.kz/vip26/upvisv.shtml”

And according to this, the original idea started in America in 1963:
http://igrushka.kz/vip25/vibroh.shtml

Some of the books “От идеи до модели” are apparently still in circulation:
http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4035485/

@andar_b: you’re right, but really only if they used the tm designator, just as your copyright claim is much iffier if you don’t actually put a copyright notice on it when you publish it. i’m pretty sure emsl didn’t bother with the tm designator (how many would bother?) probably not dreaming it would be ripped off in such a direct and contemptuous manner.

I think this sucks for the guys at Evil mad.

There youtube video got 2 millions hits!

Yes it is possible that they never heard or see that device move. But come on.

This is really hard to tell. With the same name, that is odd.

@trapezoid – those kits are cool, it’s even cooler that they credit EMS, that’s the big question here – does klutz / scholastic feel they should credit… here’s what the kit maker in the UK said…

“They started life as small, toothbrush based bots – as this great article on Evil Mad Scientist explains.”

if klutz did that i’m pretty sure everyone would be happy, but instead they’ve issued a new statement that says they invented the exact same thing with the exact same name *before* EMS (same year).

I wouldn’t like it, but what are you going to do about it. I don’t think emsl is really out there to take klutz down, so I’d probably let it go. With small contributions (read: small open source software contributions), I wouldn’t care to much. Use my code whatever you want. But if somebody copied my complete app with the same name without giving me credit, thats just not cool…

to Threeck

or maybe you could have done more research. Piezoelectric microphone is one of the first microphones invented also contact microphone is piezo one

Never seen anything like that before…

tiny tempest in a tiny teapot

I think it’s fairly obvious that the design of the bristlebot is not anything complicated or earthshattering, but the name “Bristlebot” is pretty unique. The fact that Evil Mad put it out there on the internet with that name long before Klutz’ book is a bit suspect.
Legally, Klutz is in the clear, but ethically, they screwed up IMHO.
The sad thing is that a book that inspires children toward building electronic devices could have benefited greatly from a link to Evil Mad’s website. This would have given those reading the book a place to go to find even more cool electronics projects.

At this point, the only recourse any of us, who post projects, hacks or new ideas online, have against a company turning a profit on our ideas is shame. I say call out companies who do this and shame them into being more careful to give credit where credit is due.

Just as long as nobody uses bristle-bots to carry nuclear weapons it’s (sort of) OK :)

Ok does anyone realize that it is completely possible they did come up with the idea with out possibly even hearing about the mad scientest..The name bristle bot could of even been some of the possible names of the design… As far as crediting the two originators after the fact would leave the company in a possible legal grey spot.. More then likely the huge company thought they had an original idea and decided to run with it and later found a DOH….. (slap on the forhead) the only thing that is possible to be blamed would be there research department who probably scanned the patten office and left it at that..

and it’s over — thanks for your help.

And it’s over – Scholastic and Klutz will credit Evil Mad Scientist’s “BristleBots”

Here the final note on the “BristleBots” we’ve been covering here – Lenore from Evil Mad Scientist writes -

Pat Murphy of Klutz will be sending out a note shortly to let everyone know that Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories will be receiving acknowledgment in the next printing of Invasion of the BristleBots as well as on the Klutz website. This is good news for us, and it seems like Klutz is really learning from this experience about how to work with the maker community. The online response to this situation has been overwhelming and I am glad that such an incredibly vibrant discussion was able to take place. I am truly impressed by and grateful for the support we have received.

cheers,
pt

Does anybody know where to get pager motors in germany?

I did wonder about using the little “pancake” mobile phone motors used in Samsung and others.

Also by changing the direction you might be able to steer it as centrifugal force will cause an equal and opposite reaction.

-A

sorry for a slight OT, but I have a question on the bristle bot. Can I find that little motor in a cellphone? tnx

I didn’t see Karel Čapek given any credit for coining the term “robot” in any of this. Just think, all those words and inventions we take for granted and there’s no mention anywhere where the word or idea came from.

Klutz could have extended a courtesy but none of us even know if anyone of significance at the company even knows where the idea came from. You will be disappointed if expecting companies to do things out of the goodness of their heart. So if this upsets them, or anyone else, then start reading about ways of protecting your ideas to prevent it.

Microsoft spends millions protecting their ideas, and many of them aren’t even as good as Bristlebots.

I have been published without credit – not a matter of my work being stolen, such as this appears to be, but it does suck all the same to me. If my stuff is being shown, it would be nice to at least have a name attached to it.

-N

Hah! look at the product categories on amazon and they all have to do with “rip-off” and “Piracy” and whatnot. Lol.

Actually, “bristlebots” (as a concept) were first conceived by a guy whose name I can’t recall but whose general lack of politeness had him cast off of the OLDEST BEAM mailing list run by Mark Dalton either at the end of 1996 or the beginning of 1997. Incidentally, I became the “BEAM Heretic” about the same time and was kicked off the list shortly afterward… basically, neither of us believed in the nonsense that Mark Tilden was spouting about his robots: both control structure and mechanics (but we won’t go into that here).

This other guy’s contention was that you could take a “slicker” which is an animal brush that does exactly what its name implies – it “slicks down” the top layer of an animal’s coat & is OK as long as you don’t hit a mat or tangle. They have possibly 256 (16×16) short bristles, all bent at the same angle made of stainless steel, so he said that you could put an eccentric motor on top and it would “Move around just as well as any BEAM robot and, if given a slope, would tend to move up it in a fairly agile manner if aimed properly.” Since that “platform” was somewhat large, I think he began to discuss the idea of using separate motors on either side for steering, but of course, his ideas were cut off rather abruptly.

In any case, his design was absolutely the same as the so-called “bristlebots” (not merely in general, but actually in basic appearance), just made with tougher and larger materials. In other words, his designed PRE-DATED all other claims by at least ten years!!!

you know, this was silly when it started and it’s still silly now. I don’t even care if Klutz ripped them off (which, when I last looked into this, there wasn’t piles of evidence showing that they did, and like John says above, others had the idea earlier). What gets me is best summed up by this quote

“If you’re afraid of being ripped off, then you’re an amateur.”

http://www.inktank.com/2009/03/17/if-youre-afraid-of-being-ripped-off-youre-an-amateur/

Move on and get your revenge by coming out with other better ideas.

Windell is often easily offended. When I ordered about $850 worth of “interactive LED table” panels and asked about his page which claims “open source” in the title, a page which was selling the LED panels, he got very nasty with me and refused my order. All over an honest question about the “open source” implication. Windell may be smart enough to design LEDs but not smart enough to answer non-threatening questions about his open source claims. After trying to buy nearly $1,000 of product and getting snubbed it feels like dealing with a schizo….

Buyer beware.

A chum urged me to look at this website, great post, fanstatic read… keep up the good work!