Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[chudster]

Recently some hobbyists have been taken to court by Minelab for potential patent infringement.

Some interpret Minelab's behaviour as anticompetitive and unconscionable.

Some interpret the hobbyist's behaviour as inviting trouble.

Nonetheless there are lessons to be learned.

I am opening this thread looking for feedback to form a charter for projects to prevent this happening again. In particular how do we make it happen in a way that protects folks from legal threat?

Do we collect patents in some kind of entity or publish to protect? If hobbyists patent, how are these paid for when the big patent costs start? Do we form a non-profit company that licences out its patents but prevents other companies from using its IP without cross licencing their patents? If we publish, how do we stop companies from picking up embryonic ideas once disclosed, improving on them and patenting those improvements? Do we want to stop them?

Can we just do it through a simple charter?

How do we foster innovation through collaboration via forums internationally to push detector technology to the max?

Over to you ........

[pelanj]

Hello, published information cannot be patented. Once you let the idea out, it becomes the state of the art and no one can patent it.

[Aziz]

Hello, published information cannot be patented. Once you let the idea out, it becomes the state of the art and no one can patent it.

This rule doesn't apply to patent trolls!!
*LOL*

[Davor]

Don Lancaster is on such crusade for years now, you can check it at www.tinaja.com

[WM6]

Hi chudster, I think, problem pointed here, can be solved this way:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

one of different known examples:

http://www.arduino.cc/

[Carl-NC]

Not knowing the details of the QED/Minelab situation, my first reaction is that Minelab is being overly aggressive. I honestly don't know why they've chosen to go after Bugs, but after more than 3 years of kicking and spitting on the dog it doesn't surprise me that the dog done bit 'im.

I don't know what you mean by "charter." Are you wanting Minelab to agree up front to allow people to independently develop detectors? Unless you have a written agreement with them, there isn't much that will specifically protect you.

Patents are a rich man's game. It's $5,000 just to sit down at the table, and $100,000 to play. If you don't have $100,000 and nerves of steel then don't bother showing up.

You don't need to do anything special to develop independent detector circuits. Stay off other people's patents, especially if those people have a history of aggressive enforcement. If you don't understand what the patents say, start a discussion on it and let's figure it out! If you believe a patent is a rehash of prior art and that you can legally infringe it, read the line above about having $100,000 and nerves of steel.

Previously I posted some suggestions on how to develop an independent detector:

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...608#post152608

All this assumes that you want to get something for your efforts, which is actually the first thing you need to decide. Do you want something (namely money) out of it, or do you just want to have fun? The money route is by far the more difficult one (it ties your hands) and the one more likely to attract "attention." But if you do it just for funsies and you come up with a really novel idea, then don't be surprised if that idea shows up in a major company's product with no gratitude.

- Carl

[ZED]

The retail metal detector manufactures around the world are a cartel and they won't let you in.......Period !!!

And they just luv metal detecting forums where people bounce around and share ideas with one another,as Carl says if you wanna join in with the big boys you better have lots of spundoullies behind you because if you have a better product than them then there gonna stomp on you.
And if you have capital then best you stay away because they can tie you up with litigation costs like you never imagined and do it for years

Zed

[chudster]

Not knowing the details of the QED/Minelab situation, my first reaction is that Minelab is being overly aggressive. I honestly don't know why they've chosen to go after Bugs, but after more than 3 years of kicking and spitting on the dog it doesn't surprise me that the dog done bit 'im.

I don't know what you mean by "charter." Are you wanting Minelab to agree up front to allow people to independently develop detectors? Unless you have a written agreement with them, there isn't much that will specifically protect you.

It is true that anyone can take you to court claiming anything. Reading about your brush with TX courts in 2003 is testament to that. One of the factors in BW's case was the behaviour of others, posting, comments and behaviour. Another factor is likely to be the innovation patent that was filed which may have elements suggestive of minelab patents.

A commercial company would be unlikely to be a party but that could be accommodated. A charter would be pleaded to an 'attacking company' to leave the hobbyist alone and pursue others if they have a grievance and could be pleaded to the court for the same purpose if they persisted. It would have a legal basis in the exemptions afforded by patent legislation. The charter would need to be agreed to by all project members as a condition to being privy to project IP before open publication and have a mechanism and process to publish and patent if appropriate.

Many of the world's communication standards were developed under such a collaborative framework between commercial and academic interests and patent rights were dealt with in those.

Patents are a rich man's game. It's $5,000 just to sit down at the table, and $100,000 to play. If you don't have $100,000 and nerves of steel then don't bother showing up.

I disagree that patenting has to be a rich man's game for hobbyists but I am not going to discuss possible strategies openly and how that might be funded for the industry to start to pick apart. It is however a STRATEGIC game.

You don't need to do anything special to develop independent detector circuits. Stay off other people's patents, especially if those people have a history of aggressive enforcement. If you don't understand what the patents say, start a discussion on it and let's figure it out! If you believe a patent is a rehash of prior art and that you can legally infringe it, read the line above about having $100,000 and nerves of steel.

And that is part of the problem. Its fine to take patented strategies and improve them for the purpose of advancing the art experimentally. With development by many people and many many patents out there you at least need some sort of process to vet what might be released for 'final use' or you need to disclaim that the stuff is for such final use or never have any useful output outside experimentation. That is what a project charter would make clear. A good patent attorney for a determined company could take openly published info and make a case for infringement so that must be foreseen. It is not like a black box competing product that must be reverse engineered to determine infringement. The soul of the 'product' is laid bare.

Previously I posted some suggestions on how to develop an independent detector:

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...608#post152608

All this assumes that you want to get something for your efforts, which is actually the first thing you need to decide. Do you want something (namely money) out of it, or do you just want to have fun? The money route is by far the more difficult one (it ties your hands) and the one more likely to attract "attention." But if you do it just for funsies and you come up with a really novel idea, then don't be surprised if that idea shows up in a major company's product with no gratitude.

- Carl

Will read this and analyse.

My current question. Is there a core group that is interested in forming such a project and who should they be?

Chudster

[chudster]

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...608#post152608

All this assumes that you want to get something for your efforts, which is actually the first thing you need to decide. Do you want something (namely money) out of it, or do you just want to have fun? The money route is by far the more difficult one (it ties your hands) and the one more likely to attract "attention." But if you do it just for funsies and you come up with a really novel idea, then don't be surprised if that idea shows up in a major company's product with no gratitude.

- Carl

It is a good post and your points are relevant to the 'charter'. I think we are on the same page probably with everything except about the patents as I think there is a role and a useful strategy there for them.

The main point is we need something that pools the efforts of hobbyists and supports collaboration. The current environment is fragmenting them and preventing the sharing of information.

Chudster

[chudster]

Hi chudster, I think, problem pointed here, can be solved this way:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

one of different known examples:

http://www.arduino.cc/

Yes that could be part of the mix. The arduino is more relevant as it has hardware but we have to recognise that there is more to this story as the arduino doesn't live in a patent aggressive environment.

Chudster

[Carl-NC]

The retail metal detector manufactures around the world are a cartel and they won't let you in.......Period !!!

And they just luv metal detecting forums where people bounce around and share ideas with one another,as Carl says if you wanna join in with the big boys you better have lots of spundoullies behind you because if you have a better product than them then there gonna stomp on you.
And if you have capital then best you stay away because they can tie you up with litigation costs like you never imagined and do it for years

Zed

Well, this isn't true in the least. There is no cartel, no collusion, not even cooperation. Sounds like a Doug Conspiracy. How could XP or Blisstool or Nexus or Red Heat or half a dozen PI makers have arisen with this powerful cartel to crush them? No, the problem with the QED, and the resulting sledgehammer response, is all on the behavior of the people involved. They got what they were begging for, and they're surprised? Really?

- Carl

[moodz]

Possibly another option is to set up a framework where you establish an "ecosystem" that benefits the participants .... where the participants can be hobbyists or commercial enterprises. There would be some sort of point system ... similiar to ebay or frequent flyers where participants can either offer or accept "rewards" or "incentives" ... based on the generation of ideas, tasks performed ( eg testing ) or anything that assists the other members in some way.

so for instance if someone comes up with a good idea they can either put it out for the other participants to see or they can offer it privately to one or more of the participants. Then there is a voting system which allocates votes or "points" to that idea. For a public idea each member can only vote -1 ( bad or already done ) 0 ( neutral or no vote) or +1 ( good idea ).

If the idea is offered privately then the reciever can offer as many points as he/she/they want to however those points equate to redeemable benefits ..... which could be anything ...eg money, parts, test equipment, product etc.

For instance some of these fancy ADCs and take a fair bit of effort and cost to source so if there was a "group buy" or "bulk buy" then there could be considerable savings for group members.

Similiarly commercials could offer parts or test equipment or even financial assistance for "testing / experimentation " in return for ideas, investigations etc etc.

Basically some sort of barter system for things that people need or can provide. Hobbyists need parts etc ( and maybe some code written now and then ) ... commercials have market power for buying things but maybe not so many sources of fresh ideas or thinking outside the box for example.

moodz

[Carl-NC]

It is a good post and your points are relevant to the 'charter'. I think we are on the same page probably with everything except about the patents as I think there is a role and a useful strategy there for them.

Oh, I agree that patents are useful in general, but for a hobbyist or even a hobbyist-collaboration they are probably more of a distraction. In the US a DIY patent approach is around $5k, using a patent attorney around $10-15k. That gets you a patent 3 years later (that's how long it's taking now), which only gives you the right to sue an infringer, which is going to run about $100k. Better hope you used a patent attorney, and he knew what he was doing.

The main point is we need something that pools the efforts of hobbyists and supports collaboration. The current environment is fragmenting them and preventing the sharing of information.

Chudster

Some years ago I tried a private "Commercial Design Group" on these forums, where members who had obvious experience were invited to join. The intent was to define one or more specific designs, divvy it up, and hopefully end up with a cutting edge detector. Then decide whether to self-produce it or license/sell it. This was before I joined White's.

There were (at least) two problems with the effort. First, there was never a clear leader. I suppose I was, by default, but my time was limited and it was easy to get behind and lose track of what everyone was trying to do. Second, we never really nailed down specific end goals. Everyone had their pet ideas they wanted to explore and the whole thing never came together as a cohesive effort. Also, despite a private forum, people were still reluctant to fully open up and share ideas.

As an Engineering Manager, it's hard enough to manage people and projects that are all within 100 feet of me. Trying to manage part-time participants on the Internet with no almost no authority is a real challenge. I'm impressed with the success of GNU projects.

I'm certainly willing to start up a new private development group again if someone wants to head it up. I cannot; besides time constraints it would be a conflict of interest. But expect an uphill battle just to get it moving in the right direction.

- Carl

[chudster]

Oh, I agree that patents are useful in general, but for a hobbyist or even a hobbyist-collaboration they are probably more of a distraction. In the US a DIY patent approach is around $5k, using a patent attorney around $10-15k. That gets you a patent 3 years later (that's how long it's taking now), which only gives you the right to sue an infringer, which is going to run about $100k. Better hope you used a patent attorney, and he knew what he was doing.

If I told you to go down the the park to play for an hour you might assume you would be bored until you got there and saw a bright shiny new swingset that you were not aware of.

These assumptions can be broken and the system could work for the hobbyist ..... with the right playground setup. I believe patents could be won and defended spending very little indeed....... with low hobbyist risk.

Some years ago I tried a private "Commercial Design Group" on these forums, where members who had obvious experience were invited to join. The intent was to define one or more specific designs, divvy it up, and hopefully end up with a cutting edge detector. Then decide whether to self-produce it or license/sell it. This was before I joined White's.

There were (at least) two problems with the effort. First, there was never a clear leader. I suppose I was, by default, but my time was limited and it was easy to get behind and lose track of what everyone was trying to do. Second, we never really nailed down specific end goals. Everyone had their pet ideas they wanted to explore and the whole thing never came together as a cohesive effort. Also, despite a private forum, people were still reluctant to fully open up and share ideas.

As an Engineering Manager, it's hard enough to manage people and projects that are all within 100 feet of me. Trying to manage part-time participants on the Internet with no almost no authority is a real challenge. I'm impressed with the success of GNU projects.

I'm certainly willing to start up a new private development group again if someone wants to head it up. I cannot; besides time constraints it would be a conflict of interest. But expect an uphill battle just to get it moving in the right direction.

- Carl

I understand the challenge you talk about. As a manager though, its disquieting though that the DEC alpha chip was developed to have breakthrough performance without any formal management or project approval and funding from DEC. In fact they did it to prove management wrong. It is amazing what a rabble might do if motivated.

Hopefully there are enough folks with compatible motivation to form something or else we can just stay fragmented in our efforts and fearful that if a project starts to have success, then without the plan to take it forward, we have the possibility to get dragged into court and stopped when someone picks up the idea and gets too enthusiastic to take it to market.

Chudster

[chudster]

The retail metal detector manufactures around the world are a cartel and they won't let you in.......Period !!!

And they just luv metal detecting forums where people bounce around and share ideas with one another,as Carl says if you wanna join in with the big boys you better have lots of spundoullies behind you because if you have a better product than them then there gonna stomp on you.
And if you have capital then best you stay away because they can tie you up with litigation costs like you never imagined and do it for years

Zed

Zed, I can see you are in Oz. The detector market is definitely fragmented and there is plenty of competitive action unlike our petrol and grocery markets (Oh wait don't Coles and Woolies sell petrol too?). I don't think cartel is the right word to describe it.

You have some assumptions. At the risk of being cryptic.

If you can't beat em- then ........

Chudster