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

[Rufus Pollock]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Mr. Puneet Kishor <punkish at eidesis.org> wrote:
> here is another viewpoint...

And very reasonable and sensible one :)

> 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.

Yes though patent pools usually require people outside of the pool to
pay (and to get in the pool you usually require your own patents ...).

However, thanks for emphasizing this as I am not sure I made this
clear enough in my original email.

As long as Lucy and her colleagues put their ideas and designs
publicly available, there should be no danger of someone else
patenting *those* ideas or controlling those designs.

> 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.

You might wish to 'force' others to share with you as you have shared
with them. This is particularly true if the patent for the improved
product was wide enough to prevent people developing non-infringing
improvements to the non-patented original patent. Nevertheless, I
think your point is a good one that you might not want to be too
concerned with whether other people patent their improvements if it
doesn't prevent you continuing to improve your own approach.

[snip]

>  > 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.

Yes the design rights I spoke of were EU only and CC is definitely
'copyright' only though it might not be that hard to 'mod' for other
areas, at least in a fairly crude way.

> 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.

Very sensible advice, though I'd note that the request was oriented to
creating a 'copyleft' (i.e. sharealike) approach in relation to
patentable material and designs, rather than simply ensuring that
something could not be patented.

Regards,

Rufus