[Discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 9, Issue 15

Alicia Gibb pip at nycresistor.com
Thu Feb 28 23:45:32 UTC 2013


For what it's worth, I was involved in a situation like this.
I was working with a company who had a toy for kids and was deciding to go
open v. closed. When I asked more questions about the liability with
selling it to kids, it turned out that part falls under warranty and not
with IP. So he came clean with me and said he just didn't actually want to
give away his designs and had been using the kid thing as an excuse. I
think with standards we have to differentiate between warranty and IP. For
example, Arduino's warranty is great! It clarifies the product is as is and
promises nothing. But it doesn't have much to do with the IP.

Alicia




On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, malcolm stanley <
a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:

> Tom, this whole discussion is a staggering example of customer development
> and I am in awe of your ability to draw people out so effectively. +1 to
> you for keeping this going so productively.
>
> when you say
>
>  *     "I've spoken to multiple companies who've told me they can't
> afford to do open products due to the cost of liability. How do you
> answer those?".*
>
> Can't address the concerns until they are at least quantified.
> Can you clarify the liabilities of concern? Are they IP issues? Safety
> issues? or issues of another nature?
>
> _________________________________________
> malcolm stanley
>
> google.voice:  215.821.6252
> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
> _________________________________________
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think you can ignore regulations, though, because they affect
>> people's choices about openness.  I've spoken to multiple companies who've
>> told me they can't afford to do open products due to the cost of liability.
>>  How do you answer those?
>>
>> t.
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Pierce Nichols wrote:
>>
>> > I think OSHWA should focus on openness (i.e. reproducibility,
>> > repairability, etc) and openness only. Leave the sort of specific
>> > regulatory and technical specifications such as CE, UL and so on
>> > encode to the existing bodies. They're doing a decent enough job as it
>> > is.
>> >
>> > I agree with Matt that the logo should be simple and easy to Google.
>> > It also really needs to be monochrome if we're going to put it on
>> > PCBs. It's possible to do multi-colored legends, but it's expensive
>> > and limits your options for PCB houses.
>> >
>> > -p
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> That's the kind of response i was hoping for, thanks!
>> >>
>> >> No, I don't think OSHWA does any of those things yet.  Should it?
>> >>
>> >> t.
>> >>
>> >> On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:49 PM, malcolm stanley wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I would argue as a reseller in the telecom space that UL / CSA / CE
>> etc cert
>> >> markings are extremely important and that some segments of consumers
>> are
>> >> extremely aware of them. In any case, unless you plan to ALWAYS sell
>> your
>> >> products direct to consumers, then you must consider the needs of the
>> >> intermediate markets who rely on these certifications and the
>> assurances
>> >> underlying them  as an important form of insurance against liability
>> and
>> >> litigation. Does OSHWA provide a service of any kind that provides a
>> service
>> >> to intermediate purchasers and resellers who would otherwise have to
>> do the
>> >> work themselves? Thinking export compliance, parts list verification,
>> >> country of origin documentation as an example of a valuable outcome to
>> some
>> >> segment of possible intermediate purchasers...
>> >>
>> >> _________________________________________
>> >> malcolm stanley
>> >>
>> >> google.voice:  215.821.6252
>> >> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
>> >> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
>> >> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
>> >> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
>> >> _________________________________________
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Great question.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd say currently the mark is only for those in the club. It's a
>> growing
>> >>> club, if sales are any indication, but it is still a club.  How wide
>> an
>> >>> audience does OSHWA want to reach?
>> >>>
>> >>> There are certs that reach a mass audience and are still unknown to
>> >>> consumers, e.g. UL. That could be one model: still a club, but very
>> >>> widespread.
>> >>>
>> >>> t.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:38 PM, malcolm stanley wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Still unclear to me who the mark is for. If it is for end-user
>> consumers
>> >>> then, for the forseeable future, the information density of the mark
>> must be
>> >>> extremely limited, as most consumers will not be able to interpret it
>> or
>> >>> know what it means. In this case the mark must provide clear
>> direction, via
>> >>> script or visible lettering, that may be used to easily find the mark
>> on the
>> >>> internet via search, so the meaning of the mark can be researched by
>> the
>> >>> minimally curious..
>> >>>
>> >>> If the mark is only for those in the club who are versed in the secret
>> >>> signs and handshakes, and know where to look for it in the secret
>> hiding
>> >>> place, then the information density may go up, as we can colour code
>> etc to
>> >>> our hearts content. But then we possibly lose access to the mark as an
>> >>> advertising and marketing tool driving awareness of our efforts.
>> >>>
>> >>> Again, who is the target market for the mark?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> discuss mailing list
>> >>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> >>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> discuss mailing list
>> >> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> >> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> discuss mailing list
>> >> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> >> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pierce Nichols
>> > Principal Engineer
>> > Logos Electromechanical, LLC
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > discuss mailing list
>> > discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> > http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130228/9d9628e8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list