[okfn-discuss] Making a technology public domain (copyleft for science and products)?

[Mr. Puneet Kishor]

here is another viewpoint...

On 1/5/09, Lucy <lucy at magnificentrevolution.org> wrote:
 > Magnificent Revolution us bicycles to generate electricity which we  
use to
 > educate about the environment and run film and music events.
 > www.magnificentrevolution.org
 >
 >  We are now at the stage where we have a number of creative ideas  
which
 > could have design rights or patents applied to them.
 >
 > Instead we want to ake sure these remain as "prior art" for anyone  
to use
 > and improve.  Our strategy for doing this is to continue adding the
 > technical and design information up on our "new" website via our  
diy page or
 > through our blogs online therefor making the information public  
domain and
 > unpatentable.  However this does not stop anyone improving upon the  
idea,
 > patenting this improvement, and in the process blocking avenues of  
future
 > development should they desire.

When and if you successfully establish something as "prior art" you  
automatically prevent others from patenting that work. You could, of  
course, also patent your own magnificent revolutions and then not  
prevent anyone from using your patented designs... kinda like what  
patent pools do.

So, the above is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is  
others improving upon our design to create an entirely new design that  
can be patented. Keep in mind, for others to be able to patent their  
new designs, they have to be substantially different from your  
design... so substantially different and non-obvious that your design  
cannot be seen as prior art to their design. Well, if they achieve  
that, why grudge them that? Let them patent it. Your designs will  
still remain free for everyone, and serve as the same springboard of  
ideas as they did for those who patented new designs. I guess, my  
philosophy is "live and let live." If I believe in patent-free  
designs, that is the path I should follow, but who am I to force  
others to follow that path.

Your good, public domain, prior-art-establishing, useful designs will  
stand the test of time and will always be available for others. They  
may even inspire others to create similar work with similar  
philosophy. But, in my view, no one has to right to deny others the  
choice of patenting.


 >
 > I'd be very interested in talking to you more about the the best  
way to
 > approach a copyleft strategy where the technology can be improved  
upon by
 > others who are then forced to continue a copy left approach whether  
this be
 > through creative commons or some other route.

Creative Commons licenses are copyrights, not patents. Designs can't  
be copyrighted, at least in the US, but they can patented. Creative  
works can be copyrighted, and creative elements in a design can  
possibly be copyrighted, but designs of machines and devices can be  
patented.

To summarize -- release your work in public domain, post it on  
websites, publish it in alternative weeklies and papers or whoever  
would publish your work, preferably use the "CC Zero" protocol (but  
check if CC Zero will cover designs), and then let a thousand flowers  
bloom -- if some of those flowers end up being patented, well heck, so  
what. You did your good deed and made the world a better place.

 >
 > I'll look forward to hearing from you.
 >
 > Lucy Sheldon
 >
 >
 > --
 > Lucy Sheldon
 > Magnificent Revolution
 > www.magnificentrevolution.org
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 >  okfn-discuss mailing list
 >  okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
 > http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
 >
 >


-- 
Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org/
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/
Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/