Re: [DIYbio] DIY Science Equipment contest

On 09/09/2013 04:51 AM, Cathal Garvey wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Mike Kang wrote:
> *Now, regarding the questions about BY-SA previously:*
>>*
>>*
>>We'd actually welcome some feedback from you on this issue. We picked
>>the Creative Commons 3 license because we thought it would afford
>>protection to the people who submit designs without hampering their
>>freedom to go forward with it independently. An ideal scenario for
>>the license we're looking for is:
>>1.) Creator submits design to Tekla Labs, and is forever free to
>>monetize, improve, and patent their design at will (though if removed
>>from the website we can't guarantee it's removed from the internet
>>entirely of course)
>>2.) People who see the design and find it interesting can post it
>>elsewhere, so long as they attribute back to the creator and to
>>Tekla, they can use it for non-commercial purposes (aka research), so
>>long as they credit the creator and Tekla, and finally, they can
>>improve upon and modify the design, so long as they still use their
>>changes for non-commercial purposes only and credit the creator and
>>Tekla.

2. limits uptake by people developing variants of an open design.
Derivative developers need to ask for a license from the creator(s)
and that gets more difficult as the lineage grows. Dang if I know the best way
to do this, but for most purposes, I like the TAPR license, which
asks derivative developers to attribute and contact original developer
with updates in any form, which includes all known in the license chain,
but has no detailed structure, just "send documents to email". TAPR
licenses any use of the design data -- commercial. TAPR has
a no patent exercise clause for all the developers in the chain -- they
promise not to sue each other. There are no mentions in TAPR of how one publishes
info and no required structure, so it is easy to see doing by prospective users.

Right now, the number of users of open hardware licenses on the planet seems tiny,
but growing. The non-commercial part seems stifling for engineer/manufacturers
to make a little profit from their effort removing flaws and kinks from
a good concept. The profit might only last as long as it takes to make another
improved derivative, so requiring to get approval from all in the license
chain before you is a slow down and could be a stopper.


3.) The creator can extend the freedom to commercialize a
>>design to whomever they desire; that is, if someone has a really cool
>>modification or attachment to your design and you want to let them
>>patent it so that you both can sell it together, that should be
>>within your rights.

So far in the open hardware evolution, the successes keep it simple, like
making breakout boards that chip companies will not do, and for less money.
So, the idea of patenting something great is not in their minds usually --
they are focusing on niche market needs and hoping to never go to court
or hire patent attorneys. They do want to make their fixed expenses
and not have to also work at something else to survive though.
Believe it or don't, but the kind of design work needed to make
seemingly *magic* improvements in bio lab gear price/performance
ratio is mundane for engineers. Boring for scientists. Trivial
conceptually. Hobbyists can even do some of it. To do it well
takes time and that requires rent money, so NC is a drag on it.

I suggest that your desire to leave the patent avenue open is fine
and it always is going to be. Believing that anyone but a hobbyist could
go ahead with a non-commercial license seems optimistic to me.

I prefer letting it, (the design data), go. Let it be open as in free,
with a few emails required only. Once something gets into the money
spending range of patents, it must be more main stream, not a niche,
and not DIY related. Once you start spending a river of money on
attorneys, you're pretty much going down the Wall Street investor
path and can't do things very inexpensively, only quick and shiny, (or dead).

Someone doing a patent would probably not
ask for a license, and when they needed to defend their monopoly
turf, they would probably battle against the chain of cross licensed
creators before them by the usual methods of making something
similar, but branded with some industrial design and say the
concept part was "obvious to the trade". Patenting is about battle,
so I doubt much selling collaboration would happen between open hardware
developers and patent seekers/holders.

John Griessen

but if
>>you guys know of a better one that you would prefer that we use
>>please let me know!

TAPR please.
or CERN, maybe -- it's evolved since I read it last

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/522E13AB.3040204%40industromatic.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.