Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[WM6]

I don't think it is meant that way at all.

Maybe Mick. I forgot to say that hard work was done with "Code" anyway.

But, there are always some "but" ... from my point of view: Codex, as it is written, mean plain invitation to "industry" to follow and stole from "hobby team" what they want, without any repercussion.

This is not acceptable. We cannot give to "industry" a blank bill, to stole from hobbyist what they want (despite that we know what happen in real world).

In such Codex should be clear declared: "For private use only, no commercial use are allowed without explicit consent of RD team!"

[chudster]

WM6,

Thanks for your addition to the debate.

Maybe Mick. I forgot to say that hard work was done with "Code" anyway.

But, there are always some "but" ... from my point of view: Codex, as it is written, mean plain invitation to "industry" to follow and stole from "hobby team" what they want, without any repercussion.

I think you are referring to the Code of Conduct on this thread? If this is posted in the wrong thread and it relates to software then yes there are better ways you can protect software.

But if its the code of conduct and you refer to hardware then I am sorry to tell you this. There is no invitation for industry to 'steal' in the code of conduct. The invitation is already there. Its been there for years and the code simply acknowledges that.

It has been written before but I will say it again clearly:

Unlike software and other items covered by copyright, there is an implied (that is, a natural) right that hardware can be copied. If you can set up a production line (big or small) produce a better or cheaper product there is nothing anyone can do provided you operate a legal business. Besides patents, there are a couple of odd things in some countries like 'circuit layout rights' that stop someone copying your copper trace structure and of course you can't pretend it is someone else's product but that is about it.

Other than staying silent, the only thing you can do that stops this is to patent. Industry patents and hobbyists don't. So, industry can 'steal' from us but if they patent in our country then there is little we can do. They can pay patent lawyers to cleverly write patents and pay them to work around the objections of an examiner. There is little again we can do about that. I believe that you can object to patents and provide documents during the patent process but once granted it costs to have a patent invalidated.

So.... there is nothing that can be put in our document that can address your concerns. You can accept that is the way that it is or start a campaign to get rid of patents altogether. Unfortunately patents have been around for a long time and have a basis in law. Good luck changing that system in your lifetime.

This is not acceptable. We cannot give to "industry" a blank bill, to stole from hobbyist what they want (despite that we know what happen in real world).

No, I agree it doesn't seem fair or acceptable. The solution to it though is not to deny that the law is on the side of the patent holder. To find a solution you have to first embrace the problem.

In such Codex should be clear declared: "For private use only, no commercial use are allowed without explicit consent of RD team!"

Your statement that something is not for commercial use unfortunately has no effect. Some companies might give you the courtesy to talk to the R&D team but even they could do exactly as they wish to make the hardware. The only thing we could put in a code of conduct is that: "all hobbyists must patent their unique ideas". Although some hobbyists have patented, that is not believed workable for everyone for all the reasons discussed in this thread.

There are some things we can do. You can assert copyright on software and this part of open projects and open source are well developed. Some things we can do are not obvious. It requires us to organise and recognise the problem. This is the first step to that.

Please don't shoot the messenger. If you or anyone has information that the legal situation is different to the above I would love to know it.

Chudster

[chudster]

Midas,

I think the problem is that we have tried to be a little too prescriptive and mentioned publishing only. We have to leave room for common sense to take place. How about saying that we believe someone should discuss the issues reasonably with the other person before dealing with someone else's ideas (whether they think them novel or not)? The CoC is not meant to replace other confidentiality measures that go further (see legal notice) but that covers both the situation that you outlined and other concerns. For example it would be common sense that if someone discloses their ideas and you believe them not to be novel because you already had them, then that should be discussed and resolved with that person before anything is done. It would not be common sense to do what you like with the idea without further discussing it with that person.

Would that work for you and does anyone else have comments or suggestions to improve that area?

Chudster

[Carl-NC]

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.

I've also asked for concrete examples and it went nowhere. Plus, the term "patent troll" appears to be misapplied... the widely accepted definition is not at all what Aziz is complaining about.

I don't disagree that many of the patents of a certain company are completely invalid, but I haven't see the supposed theft of forum ideas that some people claim.

[Aziz]

I've also asked for concrete examples and it went nowhere. Plus, the term "patent troll" appears to be misapplied... the widely accepted definition is not at all what Aziz is complaining about.

I don't disagree that many of the patents of a certain company are completely invalid, but I haven't see the supposed theft of forum ideas that some people claim.

Carl,

patenting prior art is a theft (from public knowledge).
Re-patenting old ideas is a theft (as the invention becomes public domain).
Patenting scientists work is a theft.
Patenting science is a theft too (natural laws, math, .. etc.).
Of course, published ideas in forums becomes public domain too.

The definition of "patent troll" is not standardised. I might have my own definition.
The guy from a certain company is a patent troll to me. *LOL*

Aziz

[Carl-NC]

patenting prior art is a theft (from public knowledge).
Re-patenting old ideas is a theft (as the invention becomes public domain).
Patenting scientists work is a theft.
Patenting science is a theft too (natural laws, math, .. etc.).
Of course, published ideas in forums becomes public domain too.

Attempting to patent prior art may not even be intentional, as I know from experience. Re-cycling your own prior art in order to extend patent protection is not theft per se, but certainly an illegal abuse of the system. Patenting natural laws, I have no idea what you're talking about and never have... examples?

What we're really talking about is whether "someone" has stolen ideas from public forums and obtained patents on those ideas. A few people have been very vocal about it, but examples have been glaringly absent.

The definition of "patent troll" is not standardised. I might have my own definition.

Look it up... appears to be a very standardized term.

[chudster]

Attempting to patent prior art may not even be intentional, as I know from experience. Re-cycling your own prior art in order to extend patent protection is not theft per se, but certainly an illegal abuse of the system. Patenting natural laws, I have no idea what you're talking about and never have... examples?

What we're really talking about is whether "someone" has stolen ideas from public forums and obtained patents on those ideas. A few people have been very vocal about it, but examples have been glaringly absent.

Looking at Aziz's "gripes".


Patenting scientific laws falls under the same mantle presuming that the discoveries were published. To be patentable a patent must also have utility. Thus a claim over a natural law probably fails on that basis. I have never seen a claim like: I claim newton's 2nd law of motion. The application of that law in an invention can be claimed.
I think the gripe is that SOME of Dr Candy's patents do discuss the science and the physics and look like scientific papers in part. You need to provide the detail so that someone who is skilled in the art could make it and there are few skilled with a physics PhD. Of course in practice there is know how involved too and patent applicants walk the line between telling too much and too little. The point being that while few can understand the physics it is the claims that are important not the background which discusses the science and yes the natural laws.

Patenting prior art/ old ideas/ published science/ forum ideas is certainly a no-no. The patent system is supposed to catch this as a patent applicant has an obligation to disclose all relevant prior art it knows about. If it does not then the patent is invalid due to "inequitable conduct". “Inequitable conduct resides in failure to disclose material information, or submission of false material information, with an intent to deceive . . . .” Of course in practice this must be proven and usually does not until it goes to court.

If it could be shown that employees or the agents of a company do read the forums and then go on to patent an idea here it would probably be game over for that patent.

Oh but I forgot, we all want to stay anonymous. We also find reasons not sign up to a code of conduct to help sort that out don't we? (Insert smiley smacking forehead with palm of hand)

So instead we will have to wait for a company who is patenting ideas from here to be silly enough to admit that it reads the forums.

Look it up... appears to be a very standardized term.

Googling "Patent Troll Definition" gives the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll

That matches the use that I am familiar with and would not apply to any bona fide metal detector manufacturer.

However the term "Troll" as a noun describing inflammatory posts might be more relevant to describe some of the less reasonable exchanges that I have read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Chudster

[moodz]

Looking at Aziz's "gripes".

So instead we will have to wait for a company who is patenting ideas from here to be silly enough to admit that it reads the forums.


Chudster

..... oh dear ..... and what company has litigated against a certain hobbyist party and included screenshots from said forums in its brief of evidence.

[chudster]

..... oh dear ..... and what company has litigated against a certain hobbyist party and included screenshots from said forums in its brief of evidence.

I mentioned the idea that was raised having Geotech gazetted with the IP Australia examiners for prior art searches. If we decide to write that letter, industry acceptance of the information in forums as being relevant to patent matters is important. Any forum cited in a patent legal case would meet that criteria.

That would have to be handled sensitively if there are current matters before the court.

Chudster

[Carl-NC]

I have no doubt that Minelab reads these forums and many others. The question is, what ideas have they lifted from public forums and gone on to patent those ideas as their own? (If you think I'm defending Minelab, I'm not... I would love to have a concrete example for "internal purposes." But all I hear are accusations and no examples.)

[chudster]

I have no doubt that Minelab reads these forums and many others. The question is, what ideas have they lifted from public forums and gone on to patent those ideas as their own? (If you think I'm defending Minelab, I'm not... I would love to have a concrete example for "internal purposes." But all I hear are accusations and no examples.)

I would also love to have that example to analyse. It is my view that ideas are thrown around and later when a patent appears its easy to think that your idea was stolen. It is completely possible that the example that we looked at was consciously or even subconsciously pursued by Minelab after reading the forum post. We are unlikely to ever know more though unless there is a whistleblower or it gets to court and that is unlikely. One thing is for sure, manufacturers do get the ideas out there in a finished and working design and they have at least that moral position over most hobbyists. In the case we looked at it was new features in the CTX-3030.

The proof of the pudding is: did you think of it, sim it then make it and then made it work in the field. Your ideas haven't earned their stripes until that is done by you or in collaboration.

So here is the prescription and your options:
1) Think of it. Sim it if you like. Build it and prove it in the field perhaps using the open design. Keep that secret if you like until you are ready.
2) Publish it proven and claim the glory perhaps 'donating it to the open effort' (yes industry can use it too because you published it) or
3) Patent it (with all of the costs and issues that raises) and industry needs to use it more or less on your terms. Yes you can still donate it to be used by the open effort and restrict its use otherwise as you please or
4) Keep it secret then if someone (likely to be industry) comes up with it or patents it later because it leaked or independently shrug your shoulders and be happy that you know you thought of it first.

That provides a clear path of the options to keep people from being bitter and twisted about the great theft of ideas that is believed to occur. Given laws that are unlikely to change, does anyone have other workable options?

Chudster

[Carl-NC]

Note to Doug: Get a life, and stop lifting quotes from my forum.

[dougAEGPF]

Note to Doug: Get a life, and stop lifting quotes from my forum.

I will lift what ever quotes i want from your forum! I will also depending on what a certain company does over the next week reproduce a long post from my first forum which will answer your question about patents and forum posts!

doug

[Aziz]

This whole idea sucks in my opinion. It won't work.
Chudster do you expect, that everyone who is willing to contribute to the project has to sign your document?
In case of yes, it won't work at all. And I suggest urgently not to sign it.

(Why are you blatantly lying? At least, I don't believe in you or your intention.)
Who is your orderer/client?
What is really your agenda?

Aziz

[Midas]

Midas,

I think the problem is that we have tried to be a little too prescriptive and mentioned publishing only. We have to leave room for common sense to take place. How about saying that we believe someone should discuss the issues reasonably with the other person before dealing with someone else's ideas (whether they think them novel or not)? The CoC is not meant to replace other confidentiality measures that go further (see legal notice) but that covers both the situation that you outlined and other concerns. For example it would be common sense that if someone discloses their ideas and you believe them not to be novel because you already had them, then that should be discussed and resolved with that person before anything is done. It would not be common sense to do what you like with the idea without further discussing it with that person.

Would that work for you and does anyone else have comments or suggestions to improve that area?

Chudster

I guess that's reasonable but it would still be an unfortunate situation to be in, and one I would strive to avoid in the first place. To be perfectly honest, I really don't want to know anyone's secrets. If I ever did agree to give someone confidentiality I would want to know about the idea first in its broadest possible terms. Then I would only grant it if it was definitely not an area I was messing around in or they could in some way show me without being too revealing, that the idea was nothing like one of mine.

Midas