Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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!"

[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 ...

[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

[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]

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]

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/showthread.php?19777-Open-Metal-Detector-Project&p=159677

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]

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