Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-patents - [cc-patents] Fwd: [kanzure@gmail.com: [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: Non-assertion pledges... for (patented) open source hardware?]

cc-patents AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: List for discussion of patent tools

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure AT gmail.com>
  • To: Open Manufacturing <openmanufacturing AT googlegroups.com>, diybio <diybio AT googlegroups.com>, "GOSH! - Grounding Open Source Hardware" <gosh AT piksel.no>, cc-patents AT lists.ibiblio.org, kanzure AT gmail.com, Jon Phillips <jon AT rejon.org>, developer AT lists.qi-hardware.com
  • Subject: [cc-patents] Fwd: [kanzure AT gmail.com: [Open Manufacturing] Fwd: Non-assertion pledges... for (patented) open source hardware?]
  • Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:31:39 -0500

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:

http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/2010/03/open_hardware.php

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
communities.

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.

jon

<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!)
>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-patents
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks!
>
> ---------- 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:
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Patent_Tools_Public_Discussion
<snip>

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page