[Discuss] Legal Meetup Nov. 11th in NYC

J. Simmons jrs at mach30.org
Wed Oct 23 20:43:25 UTC 2013


It has been our pleasure to help where we can in the 501c3 process.  I am
just happy we could help.

I would love to join you for the legal meetup, but I am not sure I could
swing the travel expenses to come out to NYC for a 1 day meeting.  Any
chance you all could look into setting up a teleconference link (Google+
Hangout, Skype, etc) I could use to join in?  If not, I would be more than
happy to write down some of the questions that have been kicking around my
head and Mach 30 discussions.


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:08 PM, alicia <amgibb at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mach 30 has already been a great help to us with the process of getting
> 501c3 status. I hope J. Simmons can maybe make it to the meeting?! If not,
> we'd love to bring up some questions on the topic and come back with some
> useful answers.
> Alicia
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Alicia,
>> That's definitely an important set of questions :)
>> Mach 30 is working on the same thing with respect to Export Control (EC),
>> which applies to a subset of open hardware projects. At the moment, the
>> Export Control Task Force (ECTF) is putting together an "EZ" guide to
>> export control compliance specifically tailored to open hardware
>> developers. We should see how much synergy we can get out of combining our
>> legal research. The subjects might be different, but explaining the topics
>> in a way that makes them accessible to all developers will probably be the
>> same.
>> There are already a lot of parallels between the two projects. In both
>> cases we need to find some actual lawyers who understand and are interested
>> in the issue. We both want to condense legal opinions into a GO/NO-GO kind
>> of guide for average developers. Also, we both already figure that some
>> kind of tiered approach is best. Additionally, since both projects would
>> greatly benefit from some sort of cooperation, or at least conversation,
>> with the relevant agencies (USPTO, DDTC, etc) we might be able to help each
>> other out with insider contacts.
>> Cheers,
>> Matt
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, alicia <amgibb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Great questions Matt.
>>> My goals are:
>>> 1) Figure out the best way forward to partner with lawyers who want to
>>> help us, which is more or less purely business relations.
>>> 2) Obtain more education to pass along to our community backed by
>>> experts in the patent process for what will formally work and what won't
>>> work for oshw / laundry labels and work toward the layering solution.
>>> 3) Find out what OSHWA should be focusing on in terms of formal legal
>>> stuff, we heard a bit about this from Michael Weinberg at the Summit, we
>>> want to keep that conversation going to know if for example, should OSHWA
>>> be interfacing with the USPTO? These folks would know the people to talk to
>>> there, or these folks would tell us if it's a waste of time from their
>>> experiences with the USPTO. But a formal opinion of how we go about calming
>>> fears surrounding the USPTO would be great to disseminate to the community.
>>> I would say this discussion will be 2 fold in broadness of what open
>>> hardware devs can do to protect themselves, then hone into the specifics on
>>> correctly branding partially open projects and figure out how to best move
>>> forward with a solution. In terms of your prior art question, legally prior
>>> art is enough on it's own, we're not trying to change that. But confirming
>>> advice on how to formally address it within the community would be nice as
>>> OSHWA's top question we get asked is people fearing their oshw prior art
>>> won't be found by the USPTO. So if it eventually happens where someone's
>>> oshw gets patented, and from this meeting we have created a partnership
>>> with EFF and Julie can help that person fight the overlooking of prior art
>>> and patent, that would be a great outcome. I guess another goal is to get
>>> the legal backing that makes people more and more comfortable publishing
>>> their work as open source. (So far, giving people a calming manatee<http://calmingmanatee.com/>hasn't comforted enough people into oshw, so we need another tactic.)
>>> Marino,
>>> Great advice for posting prior art!
>>> So far we don't charge for the logo or OSHWA branded oshw mostly because
>>> we don't want to turn into the USB problem  20 years down the road :).
>>> Gatekeepers by definition are not open, so OSHWA tries to stay away from
>>> that. Self labeling and self policing has worked very well so far, as you
>>> and Marco point out, but I don't know that the entire community would want
>>> to change that to include a payment for bad behavior.
>>> What I have heard from the community is that inventors want more
>>> options. Options to release some things open and some closed and have a
>>> clear direction about how to post that correctly. Options like the creative
>>> commons has options, but the issue we come up from a legal stand point is
>>> that these would all need to be in the form of social contracts. As I
>>> understand it, a license would only actually holdup in court if you had a
>>> patent to license your thing from, since oshw doesn't include obtaining
>>> patents, we can't really make licenses. Enter creative lawyering? Anyway,
>>> that last bit was maybe a bit of a tangent from your email there.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alicia
>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Alicia,
>>>> 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?
>>>> Marino,
>>>> The Thing Tracker could work as a central point for searching open
>>>> hardware projects http://thingtracker.net/
>>>> 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.
>>>> -Matt
>>>>  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/>)
>>>>> 203-429-4205
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> *Background:*
>>>>> 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>.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alicia Gibb
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

J. Simmons, President
Mach 30: Foundation for Space Development
<https://www.facebook.com/Mach30>  <http://twitter.com/mach_30>
*~ ad astra per civitatem ~
*to the stars through community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131023/f0955012/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list