Re: Hardware GPL feedback

[Graham Seaman <graham@collector.hscs.wmin.ac.uk>]

Woops, I boobed - I replied to Erik directly instead of mailing the
list. Rather than having a separate discussion, here's Erik's
reply.
Graham

Forwarded message:
 From ErikLBrown@aol.com  Tue Jan  4 17:52:53 2000
 From: ErikLBrown@aol.com
 Message-ID: <0.4a49817e.25a37c50@aol.com>
 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:39:44 EST
 Subject: Re: Hardware GPL feedback
 To: graham@collector.hscs.wmin.ac.uk
 MIME-Version: 1.0
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 84
 
Graham wrote 
 >Yes, its strange. I posted it in a burst of optimism just after I received
 >it without having read it thoroughly :-(
 >The license was sent to me following a discussion explicitly about hardware
 >licensing (and there ARE people interested in this in the same law 
 department);
 >the email even had the subject line 'hardware gpl'; but as you say, it
 >seems entirely geared to software. I've now mailed them again asking for
 >clarification on what the license is intended for (I'll post any reply
 >here). But even if it is intended for software, I guess it might still
 >be possible to use sections of it in a hardware license - remove the
 >no-sale clause and change the definitions. 
 
 I suppose.  I will make more detailed comments when I get home from work (if 
 I get out early enough).
 
 >But even then, would anybody
 >want a license geared to patents? My impression is that most people
 >think patent-based licensing is impractical for 'free' products.
 
 Based probably on the costs involved in getting a patent and the presumed 
 lack of funds on the part of people in the free software/free hardware 
 mindset.  One's own labor is much less expensive than the cost of a patent 
 attorney and the patent process.
 
 >What do you think? I believe you've patented your own design, oomecs?
 
 Yes.  At a cost of about US $12,000.00, with only a pittance of it actually 
 going to the Patent Office.  (Do you guys write that as 12.000,00?)
 
 > Is the
 >license right to limit its applicability to the US only, on the grounds
 >that US patents aren't valid elsewhere [clause 2.2]? That in itself would 
 >seem to make it pretty pointless...
 
 In the response you got from the person who wrote the license they mentioned 
 that the license is based on some current software they are dealing with.  I 
 think that anyone wanting to use this license would list all the countries in 
 which they had a patent on the relevant technology.  
 
 Even if the patent only exists in the U.S., I wouldn't say it is pointless.  
 Unlike copyright, you can't "clean room" a patent and sell something you 
 invented yourself.  Even if you invented it without ever having heard of the 
 patented technology, you're too late.  A patent (in theory) gives you a 
 limited-term monopoly on a technology (in practice it just gives you the 
 right to sue).  That's why there is a time limit, and that's also why it is 
 SUPPOSED to be much harder to get a patent.  If you perceive the U.S. 
 marketplace to be wealthy enough to afford your product (and they actually 
 want it), then having the legal right to be the only manufacturer (or at 
 least to force other manufacturers to pay a fee) for 20 years or so can pay 
 back big.  By making the same cost/payback analysis for other countries, the 
 more lucrative markets you can get a lock on, the better, even if there are 
 some countries that you miss (as I understand it, there is no universal 
 patent agreement yet like there is for Copyright).
 
 Although I started the patent process on oomecs before becoming as rabidly 
 pro-FSF as I am now, I continued the process in order to protect myself from 
 the likes of Intel.  If oomecs started out with the hobbyist community and 
 then started to grow, a large company like Intel could use its existing 
 financial and manufacturing clout to make a similar, but incompatible, 
 design.  They might even copyright or patent the design in the form that they 
 made it.  They would then be able to get a lead in the marketplace with the 
 hobbyist community being forbidden from making compatible versions of the 
 very thing they invented!  That would be unacceptable.  So, since I patented 
 it first, once we hammer out an acceptable license I will have less reason to 
 fear Intel pulling a little "Slot 1" trick.
 
 
 >No idea. There is the 'open patent' (equally uninspired name ;-)  under
 >development at http://www.openpatents.org/
 >
 I agree with your opinion 8-).  I will have to keep thinking about it.
 
 By the way, I notice that you replied directly to me rather than to the list. 
  I wasn't sure if that was because there was something in your comments you 
 didn't want the list to see.  I am responding directly to you, but I think 
 this discussion would be good for the list to see.  Perhaps you could chop 
 out the parts you don't want the list to see and then forward the rest, or 
 let me know which parts to drop and I'll forward the rest.
 
 Well, gotta get going to work!  I am REALLY lucky to work at a place where I 
 can get away with coming in this late!
 
 Erik