Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[ODM]

Aziz, that statement of his would confound the kind of "patent trolls" which you mean. It is not meant to defend that kind of behavior.

Yes, it includes statements about respecting patents, but it also denies taking the work of others and claiming it in your name, in patents or otherwise.

An "open design" would negate attempts to patent its information, but it must comply with readily existing patents, unfortunately. If unscrupulous patent litigation wouldn't exist and everyone would agree to the "open" methodology, working "open" would be unnecessary.

[Sean_Goddard]

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.

[Aziz]

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 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

[ODM]

There are precious few options for a private person to get involved in the electronics industry (not just MDs!) these days, in this world of patents. Whether we like patents or not, the present situation is that patents are here and seems patents will be around for a significant part of our lifetimes.

Building one off devices, which may or may not overlap with patents, is possible, under the experimental clause. Others may even use the devices made for personal experimentation, but doing so in a wide spread manner is dangerous because it may invite litigation - it's hard to prove no profit was being made and that all copies of the circuit were made solely for personal experimentation by the users. This is a potential problem for those who sell kits of devices which may still fall under patents, should someone consider pressing charges against hobbyists through some opportunistic lawyer agency.

Starting a production requires a heavy investment in purely legal sector. The increasing cost of production, from all kinds of agreements required internationally regarding patents and waste disposal and such, is on the rise. It is unfortunately partially a large "lump sum" to be paid at the start of a business, instead of being related to the scale of production - which makes it a laugh for larger companies, and impossible for a few persons not willing to risk their life savings. You can imagine whose interests this serves, and what parties have been at the table to decide on those agreements, of course!

---

On a whole different course, I don't think this forum needs a paper from an individual to reassure everyone that their intentions are honest. Especially if it only provides voodoo threats and "papal bull" against breaking the gentleman's agreement
I think what demonstrates good will and honest intentions best is the way one performs themselves at the public forum.

[chudster]

It's interesting to see attempts like this, and I'm not trying to push things down, but I see several things that might be poor ideas in a paper.

Not everyone will agree to all the points, and there will be some who feel other important topics are not presented right, or presented at all. A paper that expects to be signed, without legally binding power, sounds useless in a small society. Papers without legal binding are usually reserved for public relations between international states.

The CoC is designed to see if people share a common set of values and behaviours and is socially binding rather than legally. People are free to make there own legally binding arrangements including other structures that support profit and non-profit ventures as they see fit. If there is overwhelming feeling to sign a legally binding code of conduct agreement with people- many who want to remain anonymous- it could be done but I can't see the point.

As a tool for managing IP, an arbitrary obligation to sign a paper without legal binding power before being accepted as part of a small community is useless. Even if someone was reading a forum to make a quick profit from the ideas of others, signing the paper would do nothing.

It is not a tool to manage IP. It is a tool to see who shares common values and behaviours needed to work on open projects. Its voluntary.

Having a code of conduct is a good thing, but it needs to be short and abstract. Writing a long one is usually self-defeating, since any code will eventually be made a tool of argument. Longer documents will only have more loopholes and nit picking material.

I don't think it is very long but please suggest how to shorten it.

Also, when forming a contract, it is usually a long process due to several factors, not just a week. If there is no absolute authority, like a forum owner (or world dictator, etc) it will not have power of authority. When democratic process forms papers, it usually takes months if not years, and everyone to be party to some contract will read and put forward their own revisions. If everyone finally agrees on it some day (and it might never happen) it will be a rather heavy brick of paper sheets.

Its not a contract. It is a voluntary code of conduct. Comments have been opened for a week and this is not the period that you must sign it in. As for a week, we can make it longer however if you see the start date of this thread and read all the posts you will realise input and consultation has been over a while. This is the first step and its time to see who wants to come along and get on with the next. It is expected not all will sign up immediately but maybe over time more will.

That having been said, I think it's good to talk about values in a forum - and for now, having and showing good will toward fellow forum members, and working together to develop personal metal detectors further, goes a long way

I hope this explains it better. It may help, if you have not, to read all the posts in this thread.

Chudster

[chudster]

According this code, "industry" can stole ideas from hobbyist, but hobbyist cannot stole ideas from those "industry".

Great, wish you full success. Hope that there is not screenwriter Minnie Labs behind this screenplay.

WM6,

Firstly, I completely reject that anyone from industry is 'behind this screenplay'.

It is my understanding too that most metal detector companies do not patent in Slovenia so I am uncertain how you are affected. I note that if that is the case then you can use all the patents from other jurisdictions that are not patented there and still work within the law and respect the patents of industry.

The issue for those of us in Australia where at least one company heavily patents detector technology are different to those in some other places. Without any judgement of the case, at least one person is in court maybe facing the possible loss of his life savings because of that.

If you don't agree with the laws in your jurisdiction then it is presumed you can campaign to change just as we can. I think it is reasonable to suggest that we encourage people to work within the law within their jurisdiction and find away to get the best out of that.

So here is reality. If you do not patent your hardware and disclose it then anyone can use it- industry and hobbyist and yes industry will make money from your idea. You can keep it secret but that is not possible in an open project. You can patent but it has its drawbacks as have well been canvassed in this thread.

I understand that you are not happy. Please identify the parts you are unhappy with, suggest alternative wording and we can discuss and see if we can do better.

I have to say though that if you expect a code of conduct to encourage people to break the law or not to uphold it then I don't see it being likely that the majority would agree.

Remember this is the step in a chain of actions to what is hoped to be successful open projects. Please keep an open mind as to how it could be made to work within a framework that is within the law wherever we all are. Linux points to simple solutions there. If in the end we cannot change it to your satisfaction and you cannot agree with it then I hope you will review that position as you see how things shape up in future.

Chudster

[ODM]

It's interesting to see attempts like this, and I'm not trying to push things down, but I see several things that might be poor ideas in a paper.

Not everyone will agree to all the points, and there will be some who feel other important topics are not presented right, or presented at all. A paper that expects to be signed, without legally binding power, sounds useless in a small society. Papers without legal binding are usually reserved for public relations between international states.

As a tool for managing IP, an arbitrary obligation to sign a paper without legal binding power before being accepted as part of a small community is useless. Even if someone was reading a forum to make a quick profit from the ideas of others, signing the paper would do nothing.

Having a code of conduct is a good thing, but it needs to be short and abstract. Writing a long one is usually self-defeating, since any code will eventually be made a tool of argument. Longer documents will only have more loopholes and nit picking material.

Also, when forming a contract, it is usually a long process due to several factors, not just a week. If there is no absolute authority, like a forum owner (or world dictator, etc) it will not have power of authority. When democratic process forms papers, it usually takes months if not years, and everyone to be party to some contract will read and put forward their own revisions. If everyone finally agrees on it some day (and it might never happen) it will be a rather heavy brick of paper sheets.

That having been said, I think it's good to talk about values in a forum - and for now, having and showing good will toward fellow forum members, and working together to develop personal metal detectors further, goes a long way

[Mechanic]

According this code, "industry" can stole ideas from hobbyist, but hobbyist cannot stole ideas from those "industry".

Great, wish you full success. Hope that there is not screenwriter Minnie Labs behind this screenplay.

Hi WM6,

I don't think it is meant that way at all. If you like the way that something is done, don't bag it out and then go and use it! At the end of the day, if you build something that does infringe others IP and patents, but you do so for experimental/ further development purposes and don't sell anything that is derived from it, there is not a lot that can be done. Heck if an agent for a company was to spot you using a homemade detector out bush, you would just simply tell them that it is home made. If they asked how it works, tell 'em to F off!

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1990109/s119c.html

PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 119C

Infringement exemptions: acts for experimental purposes (1) A person may, without infringing a patent for an invention, do an act that would infringe the patent apart from this subsection, if the act is done for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention.
(2) For the purposes of this section, experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) determining the properties of the invention;
(b) determining the scope of a claim relating to the invention;
(c) improving or modifying the invention;
(d) determining the validity of the patent or of a claim relating to the invention;
(e) determining whether the patent for the invention would be, or has been, infringed by the doing of an act.

Cheers Mick

[WM6]

According this code, "industry" can stole ideas from hobbyist, but hobbyist cannot stole ideas from those "industry".

Great, wish you full success. Hope that there is not screenwriter Minnie Labs behind this screenplay.

[chudster]

Dear All,

I have had consultation on a conference call with folks from three continents. It was decided that prior to any other agreement (if any), a code of conduct was needed. This is not to suggest that there is any deficiency on the forum rules. The forum is open to everyone as it should be. Especially though because people may wish to be anonymous and may have undeclared linkages to industry, we need to set a standard of principles and behaviours that we can follow as a stepping stone to successful projects in common. Those principles are taken from the many posts in this thread and feedback to me.

It is my job to draft this and I'll aim to have it available for public comment within the next fortnight. When finalised it will be available to sign up to and we will look at the next step.

In the meantime if there is more to say, please post away!

Chudster

After consultation with forum peers, I am pleased to present the code of conduct for forum comment. I hope there is nothing too contentious. Assuming that it is all OK I propose to make this active after a week.

Note this is a step in the process. The next step will be to begin discussion on the actual open project(s).

Chudster

[Davor]

Sure, but some paradigm shifts are needed for that. Scratching the surface by trying this or that transistor would not change or improve the way a circuit works. It is done and tested. But Tinkerer's approach is very promising.

[chudster]

IMHO PI as we know it came to the very end of development with very little to invent

"The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end." Patent Office Commissioner, Henry Ellsworth's 1843 report to Congress.

US Patents in 1843: 2,901

2901

US Patents in 2012: 8,087,094

8087094

I would bet PI (and all detection types) still has a way to go.

Chudster

[Davor]

So far the VLFs tend to be a wee bit more complex than PIs with comparable depth. There are ways of supplying demodulated VLF signal to a device called "VDI" which is in its nature a micro. You might try some of the VLFs with VDI then.

[Tec]

Just sine waves in the ground

I have only experience with PI. But I like VLF for its IRON DISCRIMINATION. however I am scared of analog circuits and oscillators.
The way I see it, PI is multi-frequency. VLF is single (usually). What is the difference between a PI with balanced TX and RX coil and a VLF ?
Isn't the PI in this case just a multi-frequency VLF ?
What if I switch the PI in a certain way, so instead of making an exponentially discharging pulse, it makes a single frequency sine wave. What would the target see differently.. Aren't both technologies just a bunch of frequencies, or a single frequency shoved into the ground.
We measure a phase shift and an amplitude change. What else is there ?

I have lost my point, but I would really like a simple VLF circuit, that does most things digitally, can you recommend one ?

[Davor]

I may have something to add. I think I mentioned before that my focus is mainly in VLF, while most of the developers are still smitten by PI and its superlative claims. IMHO PI as we know it came to the very end of development with very little to invent, and only Tinkerer's approach may have some quantum leap potential. I think VLF right now has a potential to eat any nowadays PI, provided it is equipped with better front end and R component ground balance, and also provide superior discrimination too. VLF is stuck in ye olde paradigms that are incredibly easy to overcome. Maybe the best hint of what is possible is Aziz' PC metal detector idea as posted in the balanced VLF Tx topic.
I'll continue my pursuit of a better VLF with FKK coils, powerful Tx, and improved ground cancellation.