Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[chudster]

WM6,

Thanks for asking.

I sensed that people want to stay publicly anonymous in the forum but still work together but also share real names privately inside a project if they wish- just as many do. This is a social contract and so the social name you use is good enough to sign it.

I plan, next week, to post the code of conduct on a new thread with explanation on how to sign. People will be able to simply sign by posting to that thread. That thread will remain the public record of who has signed and anybody will be able to check to see if that person agrees to the code of conduct principles and behaviours. If they change their mind we may have to prevail on the administrators to remove them.

The next task is to drive the discussion (see my thread) on what the open detector will look like. The idea is to make this detector as modular and hence flexible as possible and then break down the modules into subcomponents. An architect needs to be nominated to decide the overall architecture and key specifications. Each modular part will derive its own specification and interconnects that fit that standard. The important thing and cleverness needs to be the modular architecture of both hardware and software. It needs to fit into a box of defined size and be field deployable as our principle is that for R&D, the bench in not good enough.

This allows groups to form together to design their own module for testing (for example a new front end) within the constraints of the front end module while leveraging the rest of the open design. Folks can keep their module work private until they are ready to do something with it.

Think like an IBM PC from its early days. There are lots of different modules (like PC cards) that can be plugged in and out and different 'drivers' for those modules. Modules could be clean or unclean. Unclean modules contain patented or copyrighted code. The unclean versions can be plugged in for experimentation only in those jurisdictions that have patents covering them and used freely in those jurisdictions that don't. Clean versions would have only contributed and published ideas in them known to be clear of patents.

In this way everyone can stay within the law, respect industry IP and still have the latest detector that is patent free in their jurisdiction. We can all work on a common base with interchangeable modules and people can focus on improving the bit or aspect that suits or interests them.

So it would be possible for people now to just produce their own modules and sell them the way that it all happens now or just circuit boards or just publish their modular designs as- say Eagle CAD files for others to make.

Of course this is unlikely to be a rugged consumer detector given its modular construction as true field reliability would be a challenge. Nonetheless it would be the ultimate testbed that achieves the aim to produce excellent designs and test them in the field. Great for the majority of us who want to tinker with new modules and ideas. We would n't need to build a new detector design from scratch every time a new idea comes up.

The trick of this is in getting the architecture right. I see lots of people with the right experience in making all the types of detectors and sub parts that simply need to talk to get it right.

The focus, in my view should be then to get a core, patent and copyright free design that can be used in any jurisdiction and we can go from there. It is important therefore that everyone takes a serious view of respecting IP so that design begins its life totally free of IP.

I hope that explains the process a bit better.

Chudster

[Aziz]

Hey guys,

do you regularly save interesting MD related forum posts and ideas, (scientific) publications and papers, patents, ... ???

I have collected >55 GB (Giga byte) data on my hard disk (backupped on several hard disks).

Once a good idea is posted, I will be prepared to catch it.


You should do the same to save the public domain knowledge.
Aziz

[WM6]

Hi chudster,

how do you imagine signing of this CoC?

Sign and stay anonymous?

[ODM]

I guess everyone who participates on this forum already owns a sincere interest in MD technology, geophysics and electronics. It's also at times anarchist enough to escape all kinds of methods to define it, but when people contribute it gives back to them in turn. It provides a medium for exchanging thoughts and butting heads together when something is difficult to tackle by oneself alone, and provides truckloads of second opinions. When someone posts a personal project, there are usually those who will also build it if they find it interesting, and then report back with test results and improvements, even if it's to tell it works/doesn't work, or to ask if you can replace an opamp with another. Sometimes it won't and sometimes you can't, and it's still a learning experience. There's a prevailing good will toward fellow bottlecap sweepers and soldersmiths, at least this is the impression I've had, which keeps me coming back even if I'm not too active in this hobby at times. Of course there are arguments, but those are usually solved with some external perspective, or a bit of time out! The sorts who keep harassing other people or rip off with frauds get kicked out for good, but few people need to be even reminded of the rules as the community regulates itself, for the most part.

And those who don't follow the unwritten code of decent human behavior wouldn't probably mend their manners by signing a paper, instead maybe hiding behind it and saying they're good guys since the paper says so. If they don't worry about international copyright law, they probably aren't afraid of karmic cosmic voodoo balance getting back at them?

Long story short, it's good to think about and discuss what is good conduct on a forum or in a community - then again, if it's not a legally binding contract and if there is no need for a PR stunt or something, why sign one? Save paper for more late hour pencil schematics

[Aziz]

Hi all,

in my opinion, open projects should be taken as truly open. No agreements required. No NDA's. No contracts. No patents. No limitations. And so on.

If you don't want to share your ideas, don't publish them. Don't contribute to projects. Don't talk about it. Don't tell it to your dog and cat. And don't tell it to your wife (you never know *LOL*). That's easy.

And you shouldn't complain, when someone is using your idea as well and making profits of it. Hey, anyone in the f. universe can make or should be able to make use of public domain idea. IP can't be owned and IP shouldn't be owned too. At least, the Chinese are understanding this issue.
And if someone is going to lock the natural laws by patents, be prepared to the real "end game"(tm).

I would like to see everybody exploiting open projects/ideas to make competition possible. To make useful things cheaper and affordable. Sharing will save the world. Not greed!!!

Aziz

[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

I think that is where the common sense sense comes in and you will handle that scenario when it arises.

Unless there are dissenting views, I will make the change and repost the document.

Chudster

[chudster]

This whole idea sucks in my opinion. It won't work.

Please be clear about why it won't work. What problems do you foresee? I want to know so that we can mitigate them.

Chudster do you expect, that everyone who is willing to contribute to the project has to sign your document?

No. It will be up to people to decide who they work with as they see fit. However those people may take into consideration whether they want to work with folks who won't "sign" the document. I am not the tzar and look forward to getting this to a point where it is organised and pursued by a solid teams. No great thing in technology is done by one person. It is the team that matters. BTW the plan is you can keep your anonymity in that signing and simply post that you accept it. This is a social agreement and your social forum name is good enough at that level.

(Why are you blatantly lying? At least, I don't believe in you or your intention.)

I respect your right to have beliefs; but beliefs are not based on facts.

Specifically what do you believe I am lying about?

Who is your orderer/client?

My wife does boss me around quite a lot (she would say a bit) otherwise I am in the happy position of taking orders from no one. My wife doesn't work for Minelab and my children are also far too young to be involved in international commerce.

Unhappily there is no paying client. This work is pro-bono because of my interest in the problem and because there is a workable solution and I want to go camping with my family and hopefully see my son and daughters eyes go wide if they find heir first nugget. That will be a great payment for this effort. I suppose you could say that my children are the clients that I ultimately have to satisfy.

What is really your agenda?

Aziz

Now you are shooting the messenger. It seems you assume everyone that doesn't conform to your world view has some hidden agenda and is someone's stooge.

Its not about me. Its about the document and that came from the posts on this thread and further discussions.

If you can't understand why things are in the document then ask constructive questions. Find out the facts for yourself. Make positive suggestions to change the words. That is why it was posted for forum comment.

If that is not possible then take the information to someone who understands technology strategy and IP law and get a second written opinion for the group. There should be someone suitably qualified at that place you work or within a couple of social hops.

I would value that as constructive and so would everyone else. I would value discussion about this problem with independent peers.

I do understand and respect that you have some technical expertise. It is your choice whether you sign it as is. Its also your choice whether you keep an open mind and ask questions and suggest positive changes.

The present situation is one of little coordination. Folks are repeating work and engineering that could be in common. If someone gets close to a functioning detector they can get sued. That is not fun.

In the end though I hope enough folks climb on board because this train will leave the station. I have encountered lots of people who say it can't be done, it won't work, the sky is falling and all I can see is the track ahead with lots of great discovery, fun and innovation. To do that we need to organise enough without taking the fun out of it. I believe we are getting the balance of that right.

Chudster

[Davor]

Yes, that is nicely describing the absurdity of NDA-s. You are obliged not to disclose any information within the loop, but you are never given the whole information and you are either going to dunk your head in sand and play genuinely ignorant, or you will continue doing your regular thing and unknowingly disclose some information - you were not aware of.

Guess most people play the genuinely ignorant role most of the time, hence NDAs are just a tool to encourage people to continue doing so for a cause

[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

[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

[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

[Carl-NC]

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

[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]

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]

..... 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