That would suck to come up an idea, put nose to grindstone and turn it into a working invention, and then have the patent for it thrown out because a comic book writer had a similar idea and used it for a gag.
So, if Google actually ever tried to sell an automatic car-driving system, would the patent be voided on the basis of Knight Rider reruns, or would they cite The Love Bug (original version) as prior art?
The car-driving thing would only count if Knight Rider included details about exactly how the automation works.
The Donald Duck comic was pretty specific about exactly what was going on: they were feeding ping-pong balls down a tube into a submerged ship until the boyancy of the balls raised the ship. Knight Rider and friends just say "Hey what if there was a car that could drive itself? Let's make a show about that car fighting crime." Same way (to use another 80s show) MacGuyver doesn't have prior art on the idea of blowing stuff up with improvised materials.
The actual invention didn't use ping-pong balls, nor was it being presented as a feasible solution to a real-world problem any more than Donald Duck filling a car's tires with helium is presenting a serious design for a flying car. It's a cartoony gag.
Invention requires more than, "I bet you could make an X by doing Y." It requires actually getting something to work. It's not writing, it's engineering.
> Invention requires more than, "I bet you could make an X by doing Y." It requires actually getting something to work. It's not writing, it's engineering.
Yeah, but patents don't, at least, judging by what gets accepted these days.
The patent on using a stick as a dog toy took four years, two prior patents and a reexamination request from the head of the USPTO to get invalidated after being issued.
If someone applies for a patent "to float a sunken ship using ping poll balls", you are free to float a ship using air balloons, plastic globes that aren't ping pong balls, etc. Without infringing on that patent.
Similarly, you could use ping pong balls for lifting a sunken air plane without infringing on that patent.
That is why patents are written in very generic terms.
Given such a very narrowly specified talent, you can get a patent on these alternative solutions of the problem if the 'invention' is deemed a non-trivial variation on an existing prior art. For example, I would think that using an inflatable air bag, inflating it after inserting it into the vessel, could be a patentable variation on this theme. I think freezing the water in and around a sunken ship to float it definitely would be patentable, even though it is based on the same idea (replacing the water in the ship by something lighter than water) [and yes, it isn't practical, either, but that does not prevent it from being patentable]
So, if Google actually ever tried to sell an automatic car-driving system, would the patent be voided on the basis of Knight Rider reruns, or would they cite The Love Bug (original version) as prior art?