[Discuss] Legal Meetup Nov. 11th in NYC
blueback09 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 23 16:37:16 UTC 2013
Regarding the discussion points, what is the goal(s) those questions are
working towards? Are you trying to obtain some kind of protection for OSHW
work aside from the prior art exception or are you trying to confirm that
the prior art exception is enough on its own?
Do the discussion points reference open hardware developers in general, or
OSHW branded projects in particular?
The Thing Tracker could work as a central point for searching open hardware
If someone's project isn't actually open, then why would they pay to
certify it as open? If it's not open then it shouldn't be certified as open
EXPECIALLY if they offer money.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Marketply <contact at marketply.org> wrote:
> I'd love to attend.
> And will add thoughts now as well.
> *Defensive publishing tags:*
> Make it as easy as possible for the USPTO to find open hardware. Use tags.
> Build a distributed, official database for the tags. With backups hosted by
> various other supporters (websites) of open technology. Or a BitTorrent
> type of strategy where all info from open hardware is distributed and
> contains tags.
> *Publish often:*
> Defensively publish to the USPTO, quite often, and each time include a
> link to the hardware info in database.
> *Include examiners:*
> Build something that functions like the ip.com system<http://ip.com/publish/offensive-publishing.html>.
> According to their other page <https://publish.ip.com/>:
> " *Assure that your publication can be found and cited by patent
> examiners around the world by publishing to IP.com's publishing services*"
> If they can get patent examiners to browse their ip.com systems, we can
> get examiners to browse an open hardware system.
> *Super easy certifying:*
> Have people self-certify themselves, as suggested by Marco Perry<http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/2013-February/000207.html>.
> Except have them be sponsored by people in the community, and to pay only
> if the community calls BS on their hardware being open. Otherwise it's free
> to certify, and this includes for companies.
> Each time BS is called on a person or company, their fine to pay
> increases. And their license is immediately void for the hardware that
> failed in being open.
> An annual crowdfunding plus any foundation grants helps to cover costs.
> *Allow video as description:*
> It's getting easier to webcam your activities<http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1590403900/soloshot-go-film-yourself-automatically>and to add
> expandable info<https://make-dev.mozillalabs.com/en-US/projects/interactive-biography>into video.
> Videos <https://webmaker.org/> can say so much more than words, and you
> see the action and nuances of creating something. Soon we'll have cameras
> that can swivel to follow what your hands do. Or people can open-source
> make it!
> Marino Hernandez
> (just a founder of Marketply <http://www.marketply.org/>)
> On October 23, 2013 at 1:42 AM Alicia Gibb <pip at nycresistor.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> OSHWA is having a small meeting in NYC on the NYU campus with Julie
> Samuels, the Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents branch of the
> EFF, <https://www.eff.org/about/staff/julie-samuels> and Jason Schultz, a
> professor at NYU who has researched many aspects of defensive patents<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2298593>.
> They are both interested in helping the oshw movement.
> Unfortunately, the room we're meeting in is small, so we are having a few
> OSHWA board reps present and can only bring in 5 or 6 folks. We wanted to
> open the meeting to any folks on this list eager to discuss lawyer-y stuff.
> The meeting will be on Nov. 11th from around 10am-2pm though I haven't
> gotten exact times yet. Please let me know if you have interest in
> attending, and if you can't attend but have thoughts please send those my
> way too.
> Below is a summary of points we'll be talking about though the direction
> may shift during as the day takes course. From the questions we get at
> OSHWA, we feel the community would benefit from further legal knowledge in
> these areas.
> Oshw is typically innovated faster than the patent system can keep up
> with, and the patent system is too expensive for small businesses. This was
> much of the basis that the current oshw definition was founded on.
> *Discussion points:*
> 1) Fears of someone patenting pre-existing oshw work and the USPTO fails
> to find the prior art. (Hasn’t happened yet to our knowledge.) Includes
> fears that the social contract as definition won’t be enough to hold up in
> court. Similar case studies could help?
> 2) Is there another area we could put aspects of oshw that is not in the
> realm of a patent, but rather User Agreement or Terms of Service?
> 3) Continue the discussion / brain storm implementation of the layering
> of openness / laundry label from the discussion list<http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/2013-February/thread.html>.
> Alicia Gibb
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss