Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Weaknesses in CoolIP Model? //Re: [AWES] Peer to patent

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    RobertC worte:   One of the weaknesses with the CoolIP idea used here is how to inform ...     Lets be clear that we have declared our
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 19, 2012
      RobertC worte:
       
      "One of the weaknesses with the CoolIP idea used here is how to inform
      the patent offices that an invention claim is already covered by a post
      on some arbitrary forum. "
       
       
      Lets be clear that we have declared our parallel-evolved coolIP as a CC share-alike non-commercial license, making it a true standards-based IP approach. We have also clearly established "Joe's" AWES Forum as the top Publication-Of-Record in our field, so it would be hard to argue in a patent trial that a Forum IP disclosure is not a valid public disclosure for anyone seriously working in AWES R&D.
       
      Its not really our problem or job to inform the world's Patent Offices of prior art, as if we could bother to respond to so many frivolous claims. We rely on our expert knowledge of pror art to give us confidence as designers, and stand ready to present invalidating prior art as disputes arise. We should even be able to make money expertly knocking down  junk patents with prior art, for one big corporation versus another.
       
      So  much for this coolIP "weakness"; what then are others? Folks fret about pirates, who happily ignore small-holder  patents; but its hard to imagine direct biz harm from fringe competitors with such a vast potential resource as the sky. Nor do we expect large PR driven corporate interests, like Google, to rip our best ideas off just so we can endlessly punk them in public with high-profile boycotts and ridicule. They still face design copyright law as well.
       
      It may be our faith in the CC honor system is the strongest IP model in a classic kiting driven field where no serious blocking patents seem to exist. We own the ethical high-ground with respect to the poor urgently awaiting open energy solutions. We apparently need not pay a penny to patent attorneys in our open source movement, leaving more capital for direct investment. 
       
    • Joe Faust
      CC :: creative commons http://creativecommons.org/ Legal Note: coolIP is hereby defined as a Creative-Commons Unported
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 20, 2012

        CC :: creative commons      http://creativecommons.org/

        Legal Note: coolIP is hereby defined as a Creative-Commons Unported NonCommercial Share-Alike License, so now we are integrated with the latest standard cooperative IP model, but "coolIP" remains a nice shorthand.


      • roderickjosephread
        I would have thought a ... [88] Attribution-ShareAlike CC BY-SA This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes,
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 20, 2012
          I would have thought a ...

          Attribution-ShareAlike 
          CC BY-SA

          This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to "copyleft" free and open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. This is the license used by Wikipedia, and is recommended for materials that would benefit from incorporating content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects.

          View License Deed | View Legal Code



          Makes more sense. Surely people are going to be more motivated if they can make money too.
        • dave santos
          Rod,   We use a special CC variant called Non-Commercial that reserves commercialization rights for creators. Based on this right, we invite the world to
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 20, 2012
            Rod,
             
            We use a special CC variant called Non-Commercial that reserves commercialization rights for creators. Based on this right, we invite the world to engage in small commercial development of our ideas, as an open license. Where we draw the line is with direct harm or big money (millions) and large corporate players, where a formal cooperative commercial agreement with profit sharing would be expected in exchange for our design copyright license.
             
            Of course every individual IP creator in our circle is free to tweak this open-model patent-alternative framework. All we sought with coolIP was to be able to focus on sharing engineering success, rather than on patents and meeting patent costs,
             
            daveS
             
             
          • Robert Copcutt
            Sorry to post in haste and not make my meaning clearer. There are companies that buy patent rights from frustrated inventors and then aggressively demand
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 21, 2012
              Sorry to post in haste and not make my meaning clearer. There are
              companies that buy patent rights from frustrated inventors and then
              aggressively demand royalties from all possible parties. How many patent
              office examiners search this forum for AWE prior art? Probably none.
              Therefore a patent could easily be granted for an idea previously
              discussed here. Getting a patent overturned once granted is expensive.
              Fighting unjust royalty claims could ruin a small company. The Peer to
              Patent concept is therefore important. So far it only covers a narrow
              range of subjects but I am sure Joe and others here could save examiners
              a lot of time if AWE based applications were posted on the Peer to
              Patent site for public comment. It could pre-empt a lot of hassle in the
              future.

              The other point I was meaning to make is that CoolIP is another one of
              those words invented on this forum and used only here. More Jargon! More
              barriers to understanding! I doubt the word serves the purpose it was
              created for. Merely putting an idea in a public forum stops others
              patenting it (provided the examiners find the reference). CC is mostly
              about copyright which is different. My understanding is that if we want
              to have a chance of stopping big companies excluding us from our own
              ideas all we need to do is to post the idea here. They might succeed
              anyway, but to improve our chances it is really important to make the
              explanation really clear and illustrate it with clear diagrams. Millions
              have been wasted in patent courts arguing about what a particular word
              means and what people really meant by what what they wrote. Clarity is
              king.

              There is a serious problem with public disclosure that concerns me
              greatly. Most venture capitalist type people want to see a patent before
              they will fund a product development. Can the likes of WOW really fund
              AWE development? The choice between public disclosure and patenting and
              secrecy is a very difficult one to decide.

              Robert.




              On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 17:56 -0700, dave santos wrote:
              >
              > RobertC worte:
              >
              > "One of the weaknesses with the CoolIP idea used here is how
              > to inform
              > the patent offices that an invention claim is already covered
              > by a post
              > on some arbitrary forum. "
              >
              >
              > Lets be clear that we have declared our parallel-evolved coolIP as a
              > CC share-alike non-commercial license, making it a true
              > standards-based IP approach. We have also clearly established "Joe's"
              > AWES Forum as the top Publication-Of-Record in our field, so it would
              > be hard to argue in a patent trial that a Forum IP disclosure is not a
              > valid public disclosure for anyone seriously working in AWES R&D.
              >
              > Its not really our problem or job to inform the world's Patent Offices
              > of prior art, as if we could bother to respond to so many frivolous
              > claims. We rely on our expert knowledge of pror art to give us
              > confidence as designers, and stand ready to present invalidating prior
              > art as disputes arise. We should even be able to make money expertly
              > knocking down junk patents with prior art, for one big corporation
              > versus another.
              >
              > So much for this coolIP "weakness"; what then are others? Folks fret
              > about pirates, who happily ignore small-holder patents; but its hard
              > to imagine direct biz harm from fringe competitors with such a vast
              > potential resource as the sky. Nor do we expect large PR driven
              > corporate interests, like Google, to rip our best ideas off just so we
              > can endlessly punk them in public with high-profile boycotts and
              > ridicule. They still face design copyright law as well.
              >
              > It may be our faith in the CC honor system is the strongest IP model
              > in a classic kiting driven field where no serious blocking patents
              > seem to exist. We own the ethical high-ground with respect to the poor
              > urgently awaiting open energy solutions. We apparently need not pay a
              > penny to patent attorneys in our open source movement, leaving more
              > capital for direct investment.
              >
            • dave santos
              Robert,   Lets do the experiment, where some folks depend (and $pend) on the patent system, and the general approach you have laid out, which involves
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 21, 2012
                Robert,
                 
                Lets do the experiment, where some folks depend (and $pend) on the patent system, and the general approach you have laid out, which involves jumping through most every hoop the system demands (incl. Peer to Patent). Let others try the CC and open-source models; and even a playful creative attitude toward technical jargon. Let them try to make millions from the Big Corp litigation process as the experts able to knock down most claims.
                 
                In a few years we can see what worked best, and do a lot more of that,
                 
                daveS
                 
                PS WOW is invests broadly, both on patent-based AWE ventures, and open-source. If you have a patent, biz plan , or some compelling demo, share it with WOW, and maybe they will fund you.
                 
                 
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.