Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[Mechanic]

According this code, "industry" can stole ideas from hobbyist, but hobbyist cannot stole ideas from those "industry".

Great, wish you full success. Hope that there is not screenwriter Minnie Labs behind this screenplay.

Hi WM6,

I don't think it is meant that way at all. If you like the way that something is done, don't bag it out and then go and use it! At the end of the day, if you build something that does infringe others IP and patents, but you do so for experimental/ further development purposes and don't sell anything that is derived from it, there is not a lot that can be done. Heck if an agent for a company was to spot you using a homemade detector out bush, you would just simply tell them that it is home made. If they asked how it works, tell 'em to F off!

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...109/s119c.html
PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 119C

Infringement exemptions: acts for experimental purposes (1) A person may, without infringing a patent for an invention, do an act that would infringe the patent apart from this subsection, if the act is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention.
(2) For the purposes of this section, experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) determining the properties of the invention;
(b) determining the scope of a claim relating to the invention;
(c) improving or modifying the invention;
(d) determining the validity of the patent or of a claim relating to the invention;
(e) determining whether the patent for the invention would be, or has been, infringed by the doing of an act.

Cheers Mick

[ODM]

It's interesting to see attempts like this, and I'm not trying to push things down, but I see several things that might be poor ideas in a paper.

Not everyone will agree to all the points, and there will be some who feel other important topics are not presented right, or presented at all. A paper that expects to be signed, without legally binding power, sounds useless in a small society. Papers without legal binding are usually reserved for public relations between international states.

As a tool for managing IP, an arbitrary obligation to sign a paper without legal binding power before being accepted as part of a small community is useless. Even if someone was reading a forum to make a quick profit from the ideas of others, signing the paper would do nothing.

Having a code of conduct is a good thing, but it needs to be short and abstract. Writing a long one is usually self-defeating, since any code will eventually be made a tool of argument. Longer documents will only have more loopholes and nit picking material.

Also, when forming a contract, it is usually a long process due to several factors, not just a week. If there is no absolute authority, like a forum owner (or world dictator, etc) it will not have power of authority. When democratic process forms papers, it usually takes months if not years, and everyone to be party to some contract will read and put forward their own revisions. If everyone finally agrees on it some day (and it might never happen) it will be a rather heavy brick of paper sheets.

That having been said, I think it's good to talk about values in a forum - and for now, having and showing good will toward fellow forum members, and working together to develop personal metal detectors further, goes a long way

[chudster]

According this code, "industry" can stole ideas from hobbyist, but hobbyist cannot stole ideas from those "industry".

Great, wish you full success. Hope that there is not screenwriter Minnie Labs behind this screenplay.

WM6,

Firstly, I completely reject that anyone from industry is 'behind this screenplay'.

It is my understanding too that most metal detector companies do not patent in Slovenia so I am uncertain how you are affected. I note that if that is the case then you can use all the patents from other jurisdictions that are not patented there and still work within the law and respect the patents of industry.

The issue for those of us in Australia where at least one company heavily patents detector technology are different to those in some other places. Without any judgement of the case, at least one person is in court maybe facing the possible loss of his life savings because of that.

If you don't agree with the laws in your jurisdiction then it is presumed you can campaign to change just as we can. I think it is reasonable to suggest that we encourage people to work within the law within their jurisdiction and find away to get the best out of that.

So here is reality. If you do not patent your hardware and disclose it then anyone can use it- industry and hobbyist and yes industry will make money from your idea. You can keep it secret but that is not possible in an open project. You can patent but it has its drawbacks as have well been canvassed in this thread.

I understand that you are not happy. Please identify the parts you are unhappy with, suggest alternative wording and we can discuss and see if we can do better.

I have to say though that if you expect a code of conduct to encourage people to break the law or not to uphold it then I don't see it being likely that the majority would agree.

Remember this is the step in a chain of actions to what is hoped to be successful open projects. Please keep an open mind as to how it could be made to work within a framework that is within the law wherever we all are. Linux points to simple solutions there. If in the end we cannot change it to your satisfaction and you cannot agree with it then I hope you will review that position as you see how things shape up in future.

Chudster

[chudster]

It's interesting to see attempts like this, and I'm not trying to push things down, but I see several things that might be poor ideas in a paper.

Not everyone will agree to all the points, and there will be some who feel other important topics are not presented right, or presented at all. A paper that expects to be signed, without legally binding power, sounds useless in a small society. Papers without legal binding are usually reserved for public relations between international states.

The CoC is designed to see if people share a common set of values and behaviours and is socially binding rather than legally. People are free to make there own legally binding arrangements including other structures that support profit and non-profit ventures as they see fit. If there is overwhelming feeling to sign a legally binding code of conduct agreement with people- many who want to remain anonymous- it could be done but I can't see the point.

As a tool for managing IP, an arbitrary obligation to sign a paper without legal binding power before being accepted as part of a small community is useless. Even if someone was reading a forum to make a quick profit from the ideas of others, signing the paper would do nothing.

It is not a tool to manage IP. It is a tool to see who shares common values and behaviours needed to work on open projects. Its voluntary.

Having a code of conduct is a good thing, but it needs to be short and abstract. Writing a long one is usually self-defeating, since any code will eventually be made a tool of argument. Longer documents will only have more loopholes and nit picking material.

I don't think it is very long but please suggest how to shorten it.

Also, when forming a contract, it is usually a long process due to several factors, not just a week. If there is no absolute authority, like a forum owner (or world dictator, etc) it will not have power of authority. When democratic process forms papers, it usually takes months if not years, and everyone to be party to some contract will read and put forward their own revisions. If everyone finally agrees on it some day (and it might never happen) it will be a rather heavy brick of paper sheets.

Its not a contract. It is a voluntary code of conduct. Comments have been opened for a week and this is not the period that you must sign it in. As for a week, we can make it longer however if you see the start date of this thread and read all the posts you will realise input and consultation has been over a while. This is the first step and its time to see who wants to come along and get on with the next. It is expected not all will sign up immediately but maybe over time more will.

That having been said, I think it's good to talk about values in a forum - and for now, having and showing good will toward fellow forum members, and working together to develop personal metal detectors further, goes a long way

I hope this explains it better. It may help, if you have not, to read all the posts in this thread.

Chudster

[ODM]

There are precious few options for a private person to get involved in the electronics industry (not just MDs!) these days, in this world of patents. Whether we like patents or not, the present situation is that patents are here and seems patents will be around for a significant part of our lifetimes.

Building one off devices, which may or may not overlap with patents, is possible, under the experimental clause. Others may even use the devices made for personal experimentation, but doing so in a wide spread manner is dangerous because it may invite litigation - it's hard to prove no profit was being made and that all copies of the circuit were made solely for personal experimentation by the users. This is a potential problem for those who sell kits of devices which may still fall under patents, should someone consider pressing charges against hobbyists through some opportunistic lawyer agency.

Starting a production requires a heavy investment in purely legal sector. The increasing cost of production, from all kinds of agreements required internationally regarding patents and waste disposal and such, is on the rise. It is unfortunately partially a large "lump sum" to be paid at the start of a business, instead of being related to the scale of production - which makes it a laugh for larger companies, and impossible for a few persons not willing to risk their life savings. You can imagine whose interests this serves, and what parties have been at the table to decide on those agreements, of course!

---

On a whole different course, I don't think this forum needs a paper from an individual to reassure everyone that their intentions are honest. Especially if it only provides voodoo threats and "papal bull" against breaking the gentleman's agreement
I think what demonstrates good will and honest intentions best is the way one performs themselves at the public forum.

[Aziz]

INCREDIBLE!!!


Sorry, but I can't really respect any "patent trolls".

Someone, who is stealing the prior art, less inventive and obvious solution, patenting trivial things, dribbling the patent examiner, .....

There is a criminal (greed driven) intend in my opinion.

Chudster, are you working (or being hired) for Greedlab or other MD company?
(Just asking myself. )
Aziz

[Sean_Goddard]

I'd love to get involved with this but I propose this approach;

1) First we all decide on a SPEC

2) We elect a CEO who will coordinate the whole thing.

3) Each person will be allotted a "task" which they are required to complete but a specified time

When someone finishes the task the results / schematics / prototypes are made available to the others working on the project so we ALL work to the same level (this also stops anyone getting "ahead" and thus gaining an advantage over the others.

[ODM]

Aziz, that statement of his would confound the kind of "patent trolls" which you mean. It is not meant to defend that kind of behavior.

Yes, it includes statements about respecting patents, but it also denies taking the work of others and claiming it in your name, in patents or otherwise.

An "open design" would negate attempts to patent its information, but it must comply with readily existing patents, unfortunately. If unscrupulous patent litigation wouldn't exist and everyone would agree to the "open" methodology, working "open" would be unnecessary.

[chudster]

INCREDIBLE!!!


Sorry, but I can't really respect any "patent trolls".

Someone, who is stealing the prior art, less inventive and obvious solution, patenting trivial things, dribbling the patent examiner, .....

There was criticism that ML stole the ideas from forums and we looked for examples and one individual nominated a patent. We started to see if one such patent was valid based upon having prior art from the forums. It turned out that the patent in question was abandoned and did not get past the examiner (in Australia). They were not guilty on that occasion as the patent office did its work. I called for other examples and none have come forward as yet. All that is on record in the forums.

The only way to deal with that is with a specific analysis of each patent such as might happen of a group of people were designing an open detector and wanted to make sure it was 'clean'. To do that you must respect the patents, ideas and IP of others and not simply dismiss them.

You appear to see some companies as 'enemies'. It is a clear concept of martial arts that you do not have to like your enemies, but in order to defeat them you must first respect them and their capabilities. Forget that and their killer left hook will land. So I don't think that the CoC is asking you to love industry or any company. Laws and patents, however must be respected such as they apply or are overcome. Again I point to linux and its practice of not including proprietary code or that covered by patents. Users can though add that code in based upon a personal decision that those patents or IP rights do not operate in their jurisdiction or for whatever reason. Secondly you have the experimentation or other possible exemptions to add in even if that idea has IP rights in your jurisdiction. I note, for example, that many of the relevant patents probably do not apply in Germany.

There is a criminal (greed driven) intend in my opinion.

Chudster, are you working (or being hired) for Greedlab or other MD company?
(Just asking myself. )
Aziz

No. I have no association with any metal detector company or the industry at all and never have. I don't have relatives or friends that have either.

I went through a process of identifying myself to a group of seasoned forum peers who identified themselves to me. We took all of the comments on this thread and our skills and experience and on that basis we have come up with this as being a workable stepping stone.

Already one suggestion that has come from discussions (not in the code of conduct) is to have Geotech gazetted with the patent offices as a place to search for prior art relating to metal detector patents. While complaining brings problems to attention, doing is better. That could be one measure that makes a difference to some of the behaviours complained about.

However, I am not on trial. The CoC is there for comment after a lengthy process and you should also ask whether those working under cover for industry on these forums (if such people exist) would be likely to sign up.

I look forward to open detector projects that we can all use and I hope that with this explanation you can sign up and get involved. If not at first then later when you can see how it works.

Chudster

[chudster]

I'd love to get involved with this but I propose this approach;

1) First we all decide on a SPEC

2) We elect a CEO who will coordinate the whole thing.

3) Each person will be allotted a "task" which they are required to complete but a specified time

When someone finishes the task the results / schematics / prototypes are made available to the others working on the project so we ALL work to the same level (this also stops anyone getting "ahead" and thus gaining an advantage over the others.

Sean, love your approach. A key part of this will need to be modularisation of hardware and software so that many variants of the open detector can coexist. Your ship is on the right heading. Not sure if we need a CEO which implies a corporate structure or whether an architect is the right title. We need to move step by step.

Chudster

PS I have wondered but not asked before, is that ship firing or sinking?

[chudster]

Open Detector Project

Now that the code of conduct is for forum comment it is appropriate to open a thread to discuss what an 'open detector' design would look like. It is time for that discussion to start.

I have done that here:

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...oject&p=159677

Chudster

[Midas]

I would suggest modification of this paragraph:

I will respect confidentiality of the ideas of others. Where
someone has requested that their information or ideas are to be
kept confidential, and they are genuinely novel to me I will not publish them until I
receive their permission- even if I improve upon them.

Then it covers people against 'social excommunication' should they already have had the same idea and are hence not willing or able to keep it confidential. Of course you only have their word that's the case so its still fundamentally down to trust... so they'll probably be excommunicated anyway. Always a problem with confidentiality agreements, even non-legal ones.

I added the upon, just because its better grammar

Midas

[chudster]

I would suggest modification of this paragraph:

I will respect confidentiality of the ideas of others. Where
someone has requested that their information or ideas are to be
kept confidential, and they are genuinely novel to me I will not publish them until I
receive their permission- even if I improve upon them.

Then it covers people against 'social excommunication' should they already have had the same idea and are hence not willing or able to keep it confidential. Of course you only have their word that's the case so its still fundamentally down to trust... so they'll probably be excommunicated anyway. Always a problem with confidentiality agreements, even non-legal ones.

I added the upon, just because its better grammar

Midas

Midas,

Thanks. They are positive suggestions. The 'genuinely novel to me' requires a personal value judgement about newness and that can be unsatisfactory. Would you be happy with "and they are not already in the public domain" as a more objective exemption instead of and they are genuinely novel to me. That is more in line with the wording of confidentiality agreements although really the principle is one of not breaking someone's confidence. What I really expect should happen is that the conversation about novelty should be had with the other person before it is re-published. Otherwise you do have the problem that someone can say its not new to them, unilaterally publish but may have missed the essence of what is new.

Chudster

[Midas]

Midas,

Thanks. They are positive suggestions. The 'genuinely novel to me' requires a personal value judgement about newness and that can be unsatisfactory. Would you be happy with "and they are not already in the public domain" as a more objective exemption instead of and they are genuinely novel to me. That is more in line with the wording of confidentiality agreements although really the principle is one of not breaking someone's confidence. What I really expect should happen is that the conversation about novelty should be had with the other person before it is re-published. Otherwise you do have the problem that someone can say its not new to them, unilaterally publish but may have missed the essence of what is new.

Chudster

I'm afraid your replacement though more objective somewhat misses the point, if its in the public domain confidentiality is irrelevant. I'm more talking about the conflict that may arise when upon presentation of an idea a member of the group is either already working on a similar idea or even just thinking about it for a future project. Suddenly they are now technically locked out of something that was previously available to them to pursue anyway they wanted.

I realize its completely unpolicable to but then of course that's true of the whole agreement. If people want to lie and cheat then they will.

I was just thinking there should be a path out for the person in the above situation without breaking the agreement.

But as I said even if its in the agreement doesn't mean people will believe you so it probably doesn't make much difference.

Midas

[deemon]

IMHO PI as we know it came to the very end of development with very little to invent

I have to disagree with you , man . My new circuit is coming ...