Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[Tec]

Hi Chudster,

The current reward system:
1.The raw satisfaction of helping someone
2.The appreciation of others
3.The acclaim of others

Midas

All of the above is worthless to me.
I have no money, and I can barely afford to buy food.

I like the arduino model though.. It funds itself by having a central website , a centre of gravity and 'official' Printed Circuit boards, or fully assembled boards.
They manufacture and sell hardware and also sell licenses to logos.

Because there are so many uses for the hardware there is lots of demand.

There are less uses for a piece of hardware that does one thing (Metal detector), however it can still work I believe.

I think an open-source creative commons design and software will encourage interest and use, because people will be able to modify understand and improve.

The funding to sustain the design can come through official PCBs and source code releases that bear the logo of the product. (Others must specify 'clone' or 'compatible')
A website that provides links to information as well as the ability to buy-now PCBs, components and Donate for firmware official firmware releases, could fund the project.

The prices would be better because the volumes would be higher, and we would tend to use it because the prices are better..

such a project could sustain and fund itself on a smaller scale to the way in which Arduino works.

I am considering doing it for my design.


Tec

[Midas]

Hi Chudster,

The current reward system:
1.The raw satisfaction of helping someone
2.The appreciation of others
3.The acclaim of others

Not a brilliant system, but at least you automatically recieve reward No. 1, and maybe 2 and 3 if your lucky. Importantly, rewards are somewhat proportional to the contribution. If you try and make the rewards tangible things then equitable distribution becomes the killer. All ideas and contributions are not created equal, and impartial and informed assessment of ideas\contributions is practically impossible. If you could convince me you had a system that solves that BIG problem and all the problems Carl pointed out, then I might be interested. Not sure if I'd be into the skype thing though... I'm a shy guy.

Midas

[Aziz]

My only wish is that Aziz does not post his "worlds best ground balance" here and someone steals it! That would be a travesty for sure. Or maybe he should post it. That way it would be protected according to some of you here on being let out to the public before a patent could be had. Or am I missing something?

As long as the technology is kept secret, it is best secured from the infamous lift master. I've told you too, that your lift master hasn't the real integrity to invent it. All your and your friends effort in trying to get the technology is a waste of time.
And this is a good demonstration of how to secure a real good IP.

You know, how you can get the technology: Sue me.

[chudster]

My only wish is that Aziz does not post his "worlds best ground balance" here and someone steals it! That would be a travesty for sure. Or maybe he should post it. That way it would be protected according to some of you here on being let out to the public before a patent could be had. Or am I missing something?

I don't want to bring arguments here but let us use this to explore the problem.

Aziz's WBGB is currently not being shared or used. I don't know when it was first mentioned but I think that has been the case for a while. Why not? It appears he is worried that someone might take it, improve or obfuscate a patent around it. In the meantime we don't have the ability to try, test and put it into service if we decide it is better than WC(Current)GB. We are all the poorer for that. Innovation is the poorer. Instead we argue over 'what we know but won't tell' and please excuse me, who has the biggest and best ... whatever.

The Status Flow says we will solve that problem and remove reasons not to share. The Status Quo says we stay frustrated, not sharing and building up endless posts rather than improving MD designs.

Chudster

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

My only wish is that Aziz does not post his "worlds best ground balance" here and someone steals it! That would be a travesty for sure. Or maybe he should post it. That way it would be protected according to some of you here on being let out to the public before a patent could be had. Or am I missing something?

[chudster]

Davor,

No one will force anybody to join or do anything. Its up to you and if working in anonymity contributing as you see fit is your thing no one should burst your bubble.

Have a look though at http://arduino.cc/en/Main/FAQ

Particularly the bit about what is open source hardware.

And yes they have formed a corporate entity Arduino LLC for that design. Interestingly an entity/structure espoused by Sean. Good reasons for doing that of course.
Is that slimy corporate stuff? No its probably smart as Sean acknowledged.

Look at the innovation and success being opened up by the Arduino approach to open source hardware started by two blokes in Italy. Its so successful it is even 'infecting' detector designs in this forum.

Now I am not suggesting that we copy Arduino verbatim. I believe we can actually can do better.......

I am for the Status Flow and not the Status Quo. So lets see who has some vision and plasticity to explore divergent thinking and do great things for detector technology.

Chudster

[Sean_Goddard]

Perhaps, Minelab patents are mostly garbage that a five year old could have thought of.

I believe patents have their place.
However in the case of Minelab it is mostly marketing.

I have read some of their patent material, and my assessment is that it is formulas describing physical reality, The same as a patent for a gene sequence.

There may be a few basic novel concepts hidden under the garbage, but I can't see it.

I am guessing that it is a case of 5% technology, 80% marketing and 15% patent attorneys.
I believe that Patent attorneys make money from patents, 99% of which are worthless.

Funny, from looking an ML's patents, I see the SAME THING Tec.

Looking at their past adverts too, it's 90% BS covered by Flim-Flam, wrapped up in "lies" and made up technical terms designed to sound "cool" and appeal to the vast majoroity of detectorits who are, and I mean no offence by this, VERY ignorant of the technical side and have only what manufacturers tell them to go on. I mean, VFLEX (oohh sounds very technical). Tesoros HOT (high output transmitter - ROFLMAO). High power in my book is anything over 10KW NOT 250mW

You can't patent the laws of physics which is what ML, it would apprear, have allegedly attempted to do (and not too well to the trained eye either)!!

Go back to the OLD geotech forum patents page, look at Tesoro and Garrett patents. Identical block diagrams, and very similar claims How did BOTH get published? Surely this is the PO's fault, they are supposed to examine applications in detail are they not, and it is a requirement that BW cited references. If he did the research himself, then more fool him, he should have gotten an independent patent examiner to review his documents BEFORE he submitted them.

That said, I'm VERY firmly on BW's side in this and I think WE should be writing letters to the various PO's challenging ML's patents. If enough of us do this it might help.

Hitler tried fighting on multiple fronts, look what happened there!!

OH and WELL SAID DAVOR!!

[Davor]

I'm looking for that third option that makes industry so happy that they don't sue you but lets us all collaborate to enjoy our own ideas. Wouldn't that be nice.

But it already is nice. And on this very forum. There actually are projects that live, and that are a consequence of collective effort, and some of them do produce detectors and add-ons up to the expectations of the participants and more. And people are happy with them. I'm not at all into making a pro-looking detector with market share expectations. And I'm gradually losing stomach for corporate garbage that is constantly thrown into all aspects of my life.

I'd be glad to jump in at aspects that I recognise as ones my contribution will be welcome, a dare or two, but not as a member of some appalling corporate-like body. I just won't let corporate slime drip into my happy bubble. A corporation may offer me a job, and I may accept it if offer is good, but I'll not let it invade or cancel my personal time. Anonymity served me just fine in that matter so far.

So in case this initiative is free allover without corporate-like behaviour or market expectations, I'll support it.

[WM6]

Good point Davor.

[chudster]

IMHO patents are a hamster wheel race altogether. Sure, there is a rat winning it, but the rat that takes it seriously and pours just about all efforts to it. Casual rat race makes you lose, so why playing at all.

IP is not just patents. Actually, a patent is the only way of IP "protection" that enables you to lose your IP unwillingly. Just about every patent can be busted by "virtue" of improving it. Improvements may be simple rewording the existing claims and planting a few jargon bombs here and there. Sound familiar?

I believe a hobbyist, if true to this categorisation, should concentrate his joy and drive to his hobby. Publishing his work publicly his IP is protected as copyright. Just like that. Someone else may use it as a prior art and patent his "improvements" on it, but can never take it away. You can use some platform as "Creative Commons" to facilitate free uses of your work.

I'm also quite happy with some level of anonymity on forums, groups, etc. I don't mind sharing my thoughts and designs with others, also being a part of some collaboration, as far as my comfort zone is respected.

I'm quite confident that we'll not lose our copyright privilege any time soon, because it would mean dismantling a whole education system first. MCSE and CCNA are examples of corporate bad jokes of education and hopefully they are contained to their ridiculous bubbles for the time being.

Davor,

Your position is fine but a refrain throughout the forums is that there is this flurry of activity but no usable detector emerges. Then when some folks start to get close to the market with a hobbyist designed product, however badly they have allegedly behaved, they get a law suit. We need to learn from this.

Publish and risk having skulduggery that might see you stopped from use your own idea? Stay quiet and don't disclose then no collaboration and no kudos for your achievement unless/ until it leaks out then skulduggery and being stopped from using your own idea. I'm looking for that third option that makes industry so happy that they don't sue you but lets us all collaborate to enjoy our own ideas. Wouldn't that be nice.

Chudster

[Davor]

IMHO patents are a hamster wheel race altogether. Sure, there is a rat winning it, but the rat that takes it seriously and pours just about all efforts to it. Casual rat race makes you lose, so why playing at all.

IP is not just patents. Actually, a patent is the only way of IP "protection" that enables you to lose your IP unwillingly. Just about every patent can be busted by "virtue" of improving it. Improvements may be simple rewording the existing claims and planting a few jargon bombs here and there. Sound familiar?

I believe a hobbyist, if true to this categorisation, should concentrate his joy and drive to his hobby. Publishing his work publicly his IP is protected as copyright. Just like that. Someone else may use it as a prior art and patent his "improvements" on it, but can never take it away. You can use some platform as "Creative Commons" to facilitate free uses of your work.

I'm also quite happy with some level of anonymity on forums, groups, etc. I don't mind sharing my thoughts and designs with others, also being a part of some collaboration, as far as my comfort zone is respected.

I'm quite confident that we'll not lose our copyright privilege any time soon, because it would mean dismantling a whole education system first. MCSE and CCNA are examples of corporate bad jokes of education and hopefully they are contained to their ridiculous bubbles for the time being.

[Tec]

Perhaps, Minelab patents are mostly garbage that a five year old could have thought of.

I believe patents have their place.
However in the case of Minelab it is mostly marketing.

I have read some of their patent material, and my assessment is that it is formulas describing physical reality, The same as a patent for a gene sequence.

There may be a few basic novel concepts hidden under the garbage, but I can't see it.

I am guessing that it is a case of 5% technology, 80% marketing and 15% patent attorneys.
I believe that Patent attorneys make money from patents, 99% of which are worthless.

[ivconic]

"...Ivconic will not agree, but maybe the reason why XP etc. have been left alone is simply because they do not pose a market threat the the major detector player ML or the smaller players like Whites..."

I don't disagree, you are almost right.
XP so far is taking only hobby division and that's not a big threat for majors yet.
And if they (XP) are smart; they will continue to focus only on hobby division.

[chudster]

OK. There has been chatter on this thread.

Time for action.

I plan to call a hobbyists conference call via skype in the near future. The topic will be how we can set up an ecosystem to collaborate better and produce outcomes. We will of course be using a forum as a coordinating part of that strategy.

If you want to be invited to the call and as a screener please PM me addressing the following criteria within the next week:

1) Are you a metal detector company hater?
2) Are you affiliated with a metal detector company by relationship, employment or any commercial tie?
3) Why would you like to be involved in hobbyist a development 'collective' and what do you expect out of it?
4) What is your real name, location and time constraints (in your local time) in terms of a conference call?
5) What specific skills do you think you can bring to a group and give a little background on yourself.
6) Would you be happy for me to share your answers with members who are on the call?
7) Anything else you would like to share on the topic?
Do you have skype or need help to set it up?

Other than as you may answer 6, any information will be confidential.

There are a lot of folks out there and I intend to limit it to a core of six or so.

If you do not end up being on the call then don't worry, it is not the intention to exclude people in future (that includes MD company people) but we want to get like minded people together to get the ball rolling.

Chudster

I had a private request for more info.

I was asked: What is the end game?

I thought that should be clear to everyone so I post my answer:

"Simple. To allow people to push the art of detector technology as a hobbyist without being taken to court and to have use of their and other hobbyist designs and intellectual output fairly and that could include to facilitate them to patent if they want to.

If you read my posts I am neither a QED supporter nor Minelab supporter. Unfortunately, despite the behaviour of the QED folks, Minelab has raised the bar in chasing a hobbyist and that needs some kind of response."

For the record, I am a complete outsider of the industry and my motivations? Just look at my very first post.

Of course I'll be providing the five or so other people with my answers to the above info.

Chudster

[chudster]

Too many very smart people throw their very valuable I.P away to third parties!

My advice,

Divulge nothing.

Every time you post technical content third parties hoover it up.

I wonder where Minelab would be today if Dr Bruce Candy posted his research all over the web!

Be very careful of Wolves in Sheeps clothing.

That is for sure one approach. The issue is that there can be no collaboration and you should forget the forums altogether.

It depends why you are on the forum. I am expecting that the people are here because it is a complex area involving software, hardware, coils, science and physics yet they want to produce something that can perform like the best. If that is the case then I expect folks are interested as its not a one person effort. If they are interested in ego or just love a good argument with people then they can still get that and won't be interested in collaboration.

Chudster