Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[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

[Jerry]

Regarding "open" detector project.

No one remember Carl Moreland and his HH any-more?
A couple of years ago he was not Whites employee yet.
He developed and share his Hammerhead (excellent learning and working PI platform) with all of us here, absolutely for free.
Yes, he sell Hammerhead PCBs to us (thanks-god), but I am sure he was in lost with those PCBs ($10 for profi PCB inclusive shipping from USA to worldwide).
Maybe his reward was, that he, on basis of his work on Geotech, become employee of Whites at the end.

I think, that what Carl done with Geotech and Hammerhead, is real spirit of this forum and need to be spirit of this forum in future.
And not business debates about how to hide something from other members and then sell him something back for money.
First we all take all real knowledge about MD from Geotech and then should we hide some possible improvement ideas in reward?
There is nothing wrong to make close group business from MD, but I think that this better suit to private sphere and not to open technical forum like Geotech.

I wish for some excellent scientist here, as our colleague Davor, to go Carl steps.
To prove first his exceptional knowledge in something working in MD domain here and then share project with all of us (to possible sell PIC with code is ok from my point of view).
Then I wish his work here to be spotted from real MD business player, like Whites, Fisher, XP, Tesoro ..., and wish to him to be invited in one of these collectives.
If I were a staff manager in one of those MD companies, I would carefully monitor the work of experts like Davor here.

Best wishes to all of your dream, and never forget what we all got here on Geotech.

I agree and in particular with the last sentence.

Jerry

[oadamo]

just do it anonymously then everyone can contribute, no one will be able to get sued for patent infringement. the information will be out there for anyone that wants it.
adam

[WM6]

Regarding "open" detector project.

No one remember Carl Moreland and his HH any-more?
A couple of years ago he was not Whites employee yet.
He developed and share his Hammerhead (excellent learning and working PI platform) with all of us here, absolutely for free.
Yes, he sell Hammerhead PCBs to us (thanks-god), but I am sure he was in lost with those PCBs ($10 for profi PCB inclusive shipping from USA to worldwide).
Maybe his reward was, that he, on basis of his work on Geotech, become employee of Whites at the end.

I think, that what Carl done with Geotech and Hammerhead, is real spirit of this forum and need to be spirit of this forum in future.
And not business debates about how to hide something from other members and then sell him something back for money.
First we all take all real knowledge about MD from Geotech and then should we hide some possible improvement ideas in reward?
There is nothing wrong to make close group business from MD, but I think that this better suit to private sphere and not to open technical forum like Geotech.

I wish for some excellent scientist here, as our colleague Davor, to go Carl steps.
To prove first his exceptional knowledge in something working in MD domain here and then share project with all of us (to possible sell PIC with code is ok from my point of view).
Then I wish his work here to be spotted from real MD business player, like Whites, Fisher, XP, Tesoro ..., and wish to him to be invited in one of these collectives.
If I were a staff manager in one of those MD companies, I would carefully monitor the work of experts like Davor here.

Best wishes to all of your dream, and never forget what we all got here on Geotech.

[sido]

Arrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggghhhhhhhhh

Hows the NK7 going???

Sid

[Jerry]

With all the talk about patent rights, etc, I thought this article to interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/te...anted=all&_r=0

Jerry

[chudster]

Hi all....Ive been lurking for a while but this is my first post here.

I think even early stage discussions you need to be cautious as unique and novel concepts discussed or mentioned in public can still be taken and run with by can established company without any further discussion or permision requests from them and patented as their own. I believe this has happened already in my case where I was discussing a combination of technologies within a detecting machine back in 2010 and then last weekend spotted a machine with 3 publicised features I had discussed in a thread. After reviewing a patent based on the machine I see a fourth distinct and unique feature discussed in the thread was included in the patent.
The thread in question was on Finders forum and if you wanted to have a look at that and draw your own conclusion, the thread you are looking for is 'Hmmm...is it novel' (Only a few threads below the most recent). That forum is one that was and still is frequented by either the manufacturer itself or their representatives in Australia. To me, the coincedences are too many to be incorporated within one machine in the time frame after that post. Personally I have no doubt of what has happened and even if it was one employee that read the post and decided to pass it off as his own that the matter should be rectified in good faith now that it is known (but wont hold my breath).

My suggestion is this. Sort out the whos who of your group, then go private discussing 'ANY' aspect of any new developments relating to any proposed new machine or components realted at all to any new machine. WHile going public may offer some notable reference, it will still have to go to court to reach a suitable outcome.

Good luck with it.

Goldnugget,

Thank you very much for bringing this to our attentions.

Folks, there is a lot of supposition that Minelab patents things that are obvious, patents things that are already invented or known, and patents things especially that are posted on the forums. My jury is out. I don't know if they do or don't.

Clearly its all very confusing especially for a hobbiest who is just trying to make a better detector. It seems that at least one person taken to court because they did not understand this.

I think its valid then, so that we learn not to infringe to throw our minds to answering the question of the validity of a patent. As this one was brought to our attention, lets look at it in detail as a test case.

I have posted a new thread so that we can look very closely at this as a learning case for folks how to analyse a patent so that they don't infringe and especially if they want to do more than just the experimental type of activities that patent acts allow.

It is http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...766#post158766

I hope you will follow the thread with interest.

Chudster

[WM6]

It would be nice to have the hobby pay for itself.

[Tinkerer]

Or not...

According to Albert Einstein "You can't solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created it."
Once upon a time the patent system made perfect sense, but right now it serves only the interest of the parasites around it. It may be safely recognised as innovation tax.

Copyright is still largely unadulterated form of innovation recognition, and copyleft even more so. I don't expect anything to happen with respect to improving the patent system any time soon, especially after inclusion of small chunks of computer code as patentable IP, and US Senate watching backs of patent trolls.

Now, there is a category mostly left alone in most of the rants about IP, favoured by copyright laws, loved by politicians, smelling like optimism: education. I guess most of us, trolls excluded, are here for some kind of educational reasons. My strong belief is that keeping our marbles pro-educational we'll be able to play with them indefinitely.

Look at me, I joined here in January this year. I just can't deny that I learned a lot, just by being here.

I like the educational aspect, but together with the learning, we need the means to it. To setup a minimum lab for experimenting, needs a few pieces of equipment. It also needs a kit of parts and it would be good to keep the parts box reasonably updated.

It would be nice to have the hobby pay for itself.

It won't do much good to try to use 741 opamps and 10% tolerance resistors.

One advantage of having an LLC, would be to be able to get samples from the major parts manufacturers. The best, newest components, and it is amazing the things that are available, would be nice to have for designing the best newest metal detector.

Tinkerer

[Davor]

Or not...

According to Albert Einstein "You can't solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created it."
Once upon a time the patent system made perfect sense, but right now it serves only the interest of the parasites around it. It may be safely recognised as innovation tax.

Copyright is still largely unadulterated form of innovation recognition, and copyleft even more so. I don't expect anything to happen with respect to improving the patent system any time soon, especially after inclusion of small chunks of computer code as patentable IP, and US Senate watching backs of patent trolls.

Now, there is a category mostly left alone in most of the rants about IP, favoured by copyright laws, loved by politicians, smelling like optimism: education. I guess most of us, trolls excluded, are here for some kind of educational reasons. My strong belief is that keeping our marbles pro-educational we'll be able to play with them indefinitely.

Look at me, I joined here in January this year. I just can't deny that I learned a lot, just by being here.

[moodz]

Sid,

There are ways but they are not cheap. There are numerous legal agreements that need to be tight, company incorporation and fees, and then patent costs on top of that. One company I set up like that cost $20K in legal fees and I was told that was cheap for that complexity of deal! Not to pour cold water on what Moodz has done; but of course there are ways to limit your liability so that you are not personally sued but it may not still see your idea out there.

Chudster

.... the CRAP that happened (is happening to BW) is only driving my development harder and faster .... if you ever develop a successful "open" detector .... and by successful I mean a unit which truly outperforms most of the the competition out there ...expect to get sued harder than a "closed" proprietary design ... after all its alot easier to look for patent infringements when you publish the circuit and howtos than it is for a closed design which has to be reverse engineered ...

There is an old saying .... an elephant is a mouse designed by a committee ....

...if you want to beat the system ... use the system against itself ...you cant beat it any other way.

moodz

[Aziz]

Hi all,

I like the Moodz's idea of setting up a cheap Ltd. If one Ltd gets "broken", you can easily setup up another one. If someone is going to make a business with (high-end) metal detectors, then do it with a company shell.

Another thing: IP is restricted to a location (not everywhere protected). You might infring an idea on one location (market) but you also may produce and sell it on another not protected location. This is the possibility, to increase the warchest.

Anyway, I don't like the idea that an IP should belong to only one person/organisation. It is only monopolizing the market, prohibiting progress and competition, increasing the product costs, keeping the IP holder to exploit the market instead of making progress, ... and so on..

We the human being always shared our ideas and improved them further. That's the natural way. But the patent system late time has become so ridiculuos, that I do not support it anymore. It's time to share all good ideas. And if someone patents the public domain idea, we can blame him for stealing it (get ready to tar and feather *LOL*).

Aziz

[chudster]

Sid,

There are ways but they are not cheap. There are numerous legal agreements that need to be tight, company incorporation and fees, and then patent costs on top of that. One company I set up like that cost $20K in legal fees and I was told that was cheap for that complexity of deal! Not to pour cold water on what Moodz has done; but of course there are ways to limit your liability so that you are not personally sued but it may not still see your idea out there.

Chudster

[Carl-NC]

Carl, by being open, honest and also have taken reasonable steps to avoid IP infringements, you are minimizing the risk of being sued for damages in lost revenue etc....

What your saying is that the current new designs presented here are in breach of somebodys IP in some way and whatever is presented open here is worth ziltch in whatever value is put on it???. Well if that is the case it makes me wonder what this forum is all about after all.

Sid

Being open and honest have no bearing on patent infringement (though it may on damages). "Taking reasonable steps" is relative. If you are on a hobby forum where folks are messing around with circuits for the purpose of learning and maybe developing something for fun, then "reasonable steps" might involve asking the local denizens, "Anyone ever see a transmitter done this way before?"

However, if you decide to go into commercial production, "reasonable steps" takes on a whole different meaning. Better dig deep on patent searches, and employ the advice of an attorney.

On this forum there are concepts and circuits that are both in the public domain and patented. Ferinstance, some people have discussed and even built a dual-field PI coil which has an active patent. For homebrew "messing around" it's highly highly unlikely you will get sued for using anything on this forum.

[sido]

What ... send it off so they can copy it ??

I have already put a plan in place ...I have legally transferred ownership of my IP to a holding company.....the holding company has placed a value of 0$ on the IP ( as it is not being sold / manufactured etc etc and it is only a cost to them in terms of development , patenting etc etc ) ..however I am subcontracted ( not employed ) by the company to develop and work on ideas which I then transfer to them for no consideration ( as I am contracted by them to develop the ideas ... so they own my output effectively ) ...

However .... I own shares in the company .... if the IP ever does become worth something ( patent, product , licencing etc etc ) ... then I will get a return because I am a voting shareholder and the constitution of the company is structured to return any profit after costs ( like patents ) to the shareholders BTW ...only to the shareholders and investors who supported that particular project.

Because the assets of the company are valued at $0 there is nothing to sue for and liability is limited to the company ... cant sue the shareholders LOL or the directors ( the subcontractors did the work ) as the company engaged the subcontractors in good faith.... additionally all the knowledge or "Trade Secrets" on how to use the IP is only known to the shareholders/contractors ... the company has no technical staff ... so any aggressors would end up with nothing for their efforts ... particularly because if the company is wound up ...the aggressor would not be at the top of the creditors list.

moodz

Well thanks for that info Moodz and good to here your investigating new paths in protecting your IP from future liabilities. I am assuming your IP is in breach of no other.

There are ways to limit yourself to open litigation as seems to be the case here and being told otherwise.

Sid