Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[chudster]

Firstly thank you Chudster you for all the work you have put into this. But the problem with patents is this: a certain company has over 80 patents or applications. Take any one of these to a variety of experts for their opinion or interpretation and its likely that you will get more opinions than I have had dinners! Many are a nightmare to understand, are poorly written,filled with Phd level maths and hence subject to wide interpretation. Then who has the resources to take on a well funded company who can employ the services of the best patent attorneys that money can buy and the best technical consultants or expert witnesses that money can buy?

The other problem is that the US patent examiners are overwhelmed and in my view lack the skills or resources to adequately evaluate patent applications and have a strong financial incentive to grant the patent. Few patents are objected to it seems and the patent examiners are in most cases totally unaware of forum posts that would negate the patent because of prior art or prior public disclosure like the one I was alerted too!
dougAEGPF

It is a problem, but that will not stop us examining on an issue by issue basis valid strategies that we wish to put in the Open design. It is important that we consider it and if we cannot be definite then we modularise any third party IP so it can be swapped in and out as needed.

For example, I understand there is IP about saving settings at turn off. Seems obvious and sensible for a detector to save its settings to me. Do we do it because its obvious and there is prior art or is there a line of code that says:

If NOT PATENTNUMBER
SAVE SETTINGS ON TURNOFF
ENDIF

In the ideal, for the code, all that one needs to do is define the patent numbers to avoid. Hardware is a little more tricky but as hardware can actually be disabled by software not to infringe, software itself might modularise much.

Folks could compile a version for when they are experimenting and have a different one if they are seriously detecting. A version could be compiled and used in a detector in say Indonesia where there are (probably) no patents, provided that was not manufactured in Australia.

In short, I don't want to stop the Open Project doing what we can because we think its too hard. You can eat an elephant a bite at a time.

Linux takes this approach and keeps all third party (not free) software out, but users can add it if they choose. In that way there will be a non-infringing design.

Its a little harder with patents, but not impossible. Its time to start and not time to give up.

Chudster

[dougAEGPF]

It is a problem, but that will not stop us examining on an issue by issue basis valid strategies that we wish to put in the Open design. It is important that we consider it and if we cannot be definite then we modularise any third party IP so it can be swapped in and out as needed.

For example, I understand there is IP about saving settings at turn off. Seems obvious and sensible for a detector to save its settings to me. Do we do it because its obvious and there is prior art or is there a line of code that says:

If NOT PATENTNUMBER
SAVE SETTINGS ON TURNOFF
ENDIF

In the ideal, for the code, all that one needs to do is define the patent numbers to avoid. Hardware is a little more tricky but as hardware can actually be disabled by software not to infringe, software itself might modularise much.

Folks could compile a version for when they are experimenting and have a different one if they are seriously detecting. A version could be compiled and used in a detector in say Indonesia where there are (probably) no patents, provided that was not manufactured in Australia.

In short, I don't want to stop the Open Project doing what we can because we think its too hard. You can eat an elephant a bite at a time.

Linux takes this approach and keeps all third party (not free) software out, but users can add it if they choose. In that way there will be a non-infringing design.

Its a little harder with patents, but not impossible. Its time to start and not time to give up.

Chudster

But how does one overcome it when a detector company says that the detector may not infringe any of their patents but infringes (ie indirect infringement?) because it may be used or "adapted and arranged" (eg by reprogramming a MC for example) to infringe the companies patents?
dougAEGPF

[dougAEGPF]

A good example of the above is the Hammerhead III PI: An advanced and scalable PI design using a PIC micro for timing control and signal processing. This could have the MC reprogrammed or "adapted and arranged" with a GB system and to save the settings at switch off. Then in the strictest sense it could be seen to be used to infringe some existing patents and then be jumped on by a certain detector company!
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

But how does one overcome it when a detector company says that the detector may not infringe any of their patents but infringes (ie indirect infringement?) because it may be used or "adapted and arranged" (eg by reprogramming a MC for example) to infringe the companies patents?
dougAEGPF

I suppose this gets back to the fact that if a detector is sold with certain capabilities, and it is stated that code can be modified so that it will do better but it will infringe another's IP, but that is not our responsibility because we have sold the detector, then does a manufacturer has the right to look at intent?

Doug, would you like to reproduce here any posts that have been made on your forum from which a bloke like me, in reading these posts, could get the impression that there was intent to infringe?

[dougAEGPF]

I suppose this gets back to the fact that if a detector is sold with certain capabilities, and it is stated that code can be modified so that it will do better but it will infringe another's IP, but that is not our responsibility because we have sold the detector, then does a manufacturer has the right to look at intent?

Doug, would you like to reproduce here any posts that have been made on your forum from which a bloke like me, in reading these posts, could get the impression that there was intent to infringe?

Taken literally ANY MC detector has the potential to infringe another patent if it has the capability for the MC to be reprogrammed,or the MC or circuit be "adapted and arranged"!
Now can you show us any patent claims that you allege the QED infringes?
We are all waiting!Go for it!
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

Taken literally ANY MC detector has the potential to infringe another patent if it has the capability for the MC to be reprogrammed,or the MC or circuit be "adapted and arranged"!
Now can you show us any patent claims that you allege the QED infringes?
We are all waiting!Go for it!
dougAEGPF

Doug, would you like to reproduce here any posts that have been made on your forum from which a bloke like me, in reading these posts, could get the impression that there was intent to infringe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81EGusQGJDI

[chudster]

But how does one overcome it when a detector company says that the detector may not infringe any of their patents but infringes (ie indirect infringement?) because it may be used or "adapted and arranged" (eg by reprogramming a MC for example) to infringe the companies patents?
dougAEGPF

I am not a lawyer, but I'd need to look at the legal case where patent infringement was found on a manufacturer when the user modified it to infringe. I suppose its possible if the instructions and encouragement came from the manufacturer it might be found under inducement or incitement to infringe. In that case the judgement might be to remove the instructions from the product saying how to infringe and damages for the units that were sold with the infringing instructions.

Even for a manufacturer it is common practice in products to produce one design and turn off features for different markets for patent or other legal or marketing reasons through firmware. Communications products do this because of the telecommunications laws. That is an economic and compliance decision.

Our design is to be open and international. Its not possible to collaborate, experiment and improve without all options being possible. But we respect IP and our situation is not that one and so I would imagine there would only be instructions telling people how to not infringe. I can't imagine a judge ordering to remove instructions not to infringe or ordering our code and designs to become closed and not available in that jurisdiction. Especially when there is the right to experiment with people's patents in most, if not all, jurisdictions.

Chudster

[dougAEGPF]

Doug, would you like to reproduce here any posts that have been made on your forum from which a bloke like me, in reading these posts, could get the impression that there was intent to infringe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81EGusQGJDI

If you had not been banned twice from my forum then you could carry out this task yourself!
We are still waiting for you to tell the world what patents you allege that the QED infringes! Obviously you are unable too and it seems that you are not alone!
dougAEGPF

[dougAEGPF]

I am not a lawyer, but I'd need to look at the legal case where patent infringement was found on a manufacturer when the user modified it to infringe. I suppose its possible if the instructions and encouragement came from the manufacturer it might be found under inducement or incitement to infringe. In that case the judgement might be to remove the instructions from the product saying how to infringe and damages for the units that were sold with the infringing instructions.

Even for a manufacturer it is common practice in products to produce one design and turn off features for different markets for patent or other legal or marketing reasons through firmware. Communications products do this because of the telecommunications laws. That is an economic and compliance decision.

Our design is to be open and international. Its not possible to collaborate, experiment and improve without all options being possible. But we respect IP and our situation is not that one and so I would imagine there would only be instructions telling people how to not infringe. I can't imagine a judge ordering to remove instructions not to infringe or ordering our code and designs to become closed and not available in that jurisdiction. Especially when there is the right to experiment with people's patents in most, if not all, jurisdictions.

Chudster

Could putting out a detector with a MC that can be reprogrammed be perceived as instructions and encouragement or incitement to infringe? eg What would happen for example if the HH3 MC PI was to go commercial? Someone skilled in the art could upload the MC SC for a GB system from someone else's patented IP! Then is the user and/or the designer/provider or forum admin etc of the HH3 Mc Pi guilty of providing the means or instructions and encouragement to infringe?
doug AEGPF

[UrbanFox]

If you had not been banned twice from my forum then you could carry out this task yourself!

Ah hell Doug, I expect you have deleted the posts now anyway. I have been told you went on a bit of a post deleting binge. Is that true??

We are still waiting for you to tell the world what patents you allege that the QED infringes! Obviously you are unable too and it seems that you are not alone!
dougAEGPF

Doug, I don't want to preempt the courts, so perhaps you should just wait until December 3rd like everyone else. When the day comes, just sit back, ask Aziz if he will share some of his popcorn and coke, or perhaps you should buy your own, and wait to see how good the fireworks are. They might be very spectacular, they might just fizz.

As I have said elsewhere, it's a real pity that you are not the one in Minelab's sights.

[dougAEGPF]

I am not a lawyer, but I'd need to look at the legal case where patent infringement was found on a manufacturer when the user modified it to infringe. I suppose its possible if the instructions and encouragement came from the manufacturer it might be found under inducement or incitement to infringe. In that case the judgement might be to remove the instructions from the product saying how to infringe and damages for the units that were sold with the infringing instructions.

Even for a manufacturer it is common practice in products to produce one design and turn off features for different markets for patent or other legal or marketing reasons through firmware. Communications products do this because of the telecommunications laws. That is an economic and compliance decision.

Our design is to be open and international. Its not possible to collaborate, experiment and improve without all options being possible. But we respect IP and our situation is not that one and so I would imagine there would only be instructions telling people how to not infringe. I can't imagine a judge ordering to remove instructions not to infringe or ordering our code and designs to become closed and not available in that jurisdiction. Especially when there is the right to experiment with people's patents in most, if not all, jurisdictions.

Chudster

And here is another point. Are you committing patent infringement or incitement or encouragement to commit patent infringement by providing/publishing/discussing the means eg to uploading data to a MC by finding methods that get around a patent ( non infringing methods) due to the patents omissions or errors?
dougAEGPF

[dougAEGPF]

Ah hell Doug, I expect you have deleted the posts now anyway. I have been told you went on a bit of a post deleting binge. Is that true??
.

No posts including yours have been deleted from my forum unlike finders forum where you have had admin delete many of yours including whole threads!!!!!!!! Another example of you getting your facts wrong again, So sad! No facts no evidence!
dougAEGPF
Ps ML had me in their sights once ! Ask them the difference between a printed circuit board and an IC !Ask them where in the circuits layout act 1989 their is any reference or definition of a printed circuit board.Ask them why i did not sign any of the documents they sent me as part of their lawsuite!!!!!! I just threw the documents in the bin!!!!!

[UrbanFox]

No posts including yours have been deleted from my forum unlike finders forum where you have had admin delete many of yours including whole threads!!!!!!!! Another example of you getting your facts wrong again, So sad! No facts no evidence!
dougAEGPF

While you can state you haven't deleted posts, what is factual is that posts and complete threads have previously disappeared from your forum. Your explanation when pushed and you had no way out??? You stated these posts/threads have been moved to an area of the forum not accessible to general members and guests. Your play on words demonstrates that you will tell what to all intents and purposes are unmitigated lies and have no compunction about doing so. Your behaviour with respect to this issue alone puts your ethics and honesty in complete and utter doubt as far as I am concerned. So Doug, why would I or anyone believe what you say??

[dougAEGPF]

While you can state you haven't deleted posts, what is factual is that posts and complete threads have previously disappeared from your forum. Your explanation when pushed and you had no way out??? You stated these posts/threads have been moved to an area of the forum not accessible to general members and guests. Your play on words demonstrates that you will tell what to all intents and purposes are unmitigated lies and have no compunction about doing so. Your behaviour with respect to this issue alone puts your ethics and honesty in complete and utter doubt as far as I am concerned. So Doug, why would I or anyone believe what you say??

No posts have been deleted! end of story! No lies!!!! Some threads and boards are only accessible to designated members who I trust and respect. You fail on both criteria! So sad! You also of course engaged in willful deceptive and misleading conduct on the forum which has led to your permanent ban.
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

No posts have been deleted! end of story! No lies!!!! Some threads and boards are only accessible to designated members who I trust and respect. You fail on both criteria! So sad! You also of course engaged in willful deceptive and misleading conduct on the forum which has led to your permanent ban.
dougAEGPF

Sorry Doug. You are a liar. Posts were removed from general visibility. Using your criteria, any post removed from a forum is not deleted as it is still retained in the forum database. It is evident that the description of you as being a "Boil on the Butt of Humanity" does not go near far enough as it does not describe your lack of ethics.