[kanzure at gmail.com: [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: Non-assertion pledges... for (patented) open source hardware?]
jon at rejon.org
Thu Mar 25 20:44:30 EDT 2010
hahaha, apologies to all, I've gotten into a bad habit recently of
capitalizing words for effect. No intention of shouting :)
Yes, there is much to be debated on what is necessary. But the key
thing is to find the places where we need simple innovation on
protecting ourselves. And, also, some massive community edited pool of
patents that are free and clear would be helpful as well to convince
more people to do the similar approach.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't know why rejon is shouting, but otherwise worth fwd'ing around.
> The other issue worth bringing up is whether or not a "patent license"
> is sufficient for maker protection. TAPR seems to cover some of that.
> Non-assert pledges maybe could go the rest of the way?
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jon Phillips <jon at rejon.org>
> Date: Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [kanzure at gmail.com: [Open Manufacturing] Fwd:
> Non-assertion pledges... for (patented) open source hardware?]
> To: "Hard- and Software Development, Kernel, Distribution, Roadmap"
> <developer at lists.qi-hardware.com>
> That list may very well be a blackhole, but the people on the other
> end at CC are my friends. I'm working on this part of the puzzle
> pretty actively right now, esp. after getting a core dump from many
> working in the space at Opening Hardware at Eyebeam last week:
> Basically, for our vices, there are two parts I believe we need for
> whatever we want to call OPEN/PUBLIC patents. I'm preferring the
> PUBLIC PATENTS concept right now, basically to try and make
> easier/more clear patents so that anyone can use them and not get
> sued, or rather, to try to make sure that anyone can build upon
> hardware and software innovation without the fear of litigation.
> So, what I think we need is:
> 1.) a place where patents of all forms can be publicly disclosed
> loudly and with a disclaimer for those submitting patentable ideas
> which have, at least in the USA, a 1 year grace period on being
> registered, so that the public can be assured that in that 1 year
> grace period, the patentable idea will not be submitted as a patent,
> or if it is, it is released under the/a public patent license. After
> that 1 year, the patentable idea (that is not patented), is available
> for anyone to use if not patented...which leads to next point...
> 2.) A Public Patent License which basically allows for any patent to
> be used safely by the public. This would be useful for old patent
> portfolios and if one spends the money to patent something and then to
> release under a public patent license.
> Right now, what I can source is that best path for COPYLEFT hardware
> projects (and those feigning with the weak terms OPEN HARDWARE, FREE
> HARDWARE, OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE and OPEN SOFTWARE), is to publish
> loudly on public channels when new innovation happens (details on this
> to be decided of course). Qi-Hardware wiki is a great community
> resource for this, as well as your blog, or other places. Publishing
> loudly publicly provides prior art for this type of 1 year grace
> period to occur.
> I'm working on a new public project with some of the actors in the
> space if anyone here is interested...My goal is to create such a site
> for all sorts of freeing of patents, and also to insure Science
> Commons/CC create a very functional and useful public patent license
> that people can use. Let's call that the PPL (Public Patent
> License)...or as I'm saying: patents for (the) PPL (people).
> I must admit, I'm not precise on my terms around patents and my above
> knowledge is forming mostly around patents in the USA. But, to get
> patents right internationally, thats even more fun. For now, my
> concern is really about getting a clear path on a solution for those
> worried about patents or working in our FLOSS and COPYLEFT HARDWARE
> Please rip my statements to shreds and/or provide some
> counterpoints...and, when this is annoying, we can post up more to the
> cc-patents list.
> <topPost />
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:41 PM, cristian paul peñaranda rojas
> <paul at kristianpaul.org> wrote:
>> ----- Forwarded message from Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> -----
>> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:17:12 -0500
>> From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com>
>> To: GOSH! - Grounding Open Source Hardware <gosh at piksel.no>,
>> Open Manufacturing <openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com>,
>> diybio <diybio at googlegroups.com>, kanzure at gmail.com
>> Subject: [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: Non-assertion pledges... for (patented)
>> open source hardware?
>> Hey all,
>> I sent this email to the cc-patents mailing list. Supposedly that's
>> where the CC groupies were to be gathering, but I haven't seen a
>> response yet, and it seems like it might be a black hole (I hope not!)
>> Anyway, I am forwarding this email so that others (on the GOSH!,
>> diybio and open manufacturing lists) can comment and provide whatever
>> inputs they can.
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:31 PM
>> Subject: Non-assertion pledges... for (patented) open source hardware?
>> To: cc-patents at lists.ibiblio.org, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com>
>> Hey all,
>> I have found my way here from this page:
> - Bryan
> 1 512 203 0507
internet: @rejon + skype: kidproto
More information about the discussion