[Discuss] Legal Meetup Nov. 11th in NYC

[Michael Turner]

> If someone's project isn't actually open, then why would they pay to certify
> it as open?
>
> -Matt

Um ... because, to some marketers, "open" is a rather hollow but
positive-sounding adjective? And to have a seal of approval as
"Open(tm)" makes it sound even more positive?

 > If it's not open then it shouldn't be certified as open
> EXPECIALLY if they offer money.

Yes, but whoa, come back here. Consider the source, and don't leave
that money on the table.

I'd charge a deposit for certification evaluation, which would not be
refunded if it turns out basic criteria aren't met. Those that failed
would furthermore see their applications appear on a Wall of Shame,
with a Most Shameless Application of the Month featured. They'd have
to pay even more to get de-listed from the Wall. But since they
submitted their application in the open, nothing prevents others from
copying onto a Wall of Shame of their own. Hey, sorry, we don't even
know those people. You'll have to go talk to them, to see what their
ransom demands are. What do you mean, "blackmail"? Did you read the
fine print?

Naturally, I'd call this "the Open Process for Openness
Certification." It sounds cooler that way.

Regards,
Michael Turner
Executive Director
Project Persephone
K-1 bldg 3F
7-2-6 Nishishinjuku
Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 160-0023
Tel: +81 (3) 6890-1140
Fax: +81 (3) 6890-1158
Mobile: +81 (90) 5203-8682
turner at projectpersephone.org
http://www.projectpersephone.org/

"Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward
together in the same direction." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry


On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:37 PM, 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. According to their
>> other page:
>>
>> " 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. 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 and to add expandable info
>> into video.
>>
>> Videos 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)
>> 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, and Jason Schultz, a professor at NYU who has researched many aspects
>> of defensive patents. 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.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alicia Gibb
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Source Spaceflight Export Control" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to oss-export-control+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.