[amsat-bb] AMSAT IP

[Bruce Perens]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:18 PM Scott McDonald via AMSAT-BB <
amsat-bb at amsat.org> wrote:

> Bruce-
> As a member I have to take exception to most of your note.
> 1) To oversimplify, non-standard original shapes much like the satellite
> model often are considered copyrightable, and the copyright vests in the
> creator when the work is created. Notice and registration have much to do
> with the right to sue and collect damages, among other things, but have
> nothing to do with the copyright vesting in the creator.
>

Actually, I would think that the shapes are more the topic of design
patent. The case law around this applies to 2D fonts: the font file can be
copyrighted, but if one renders the font and traces the outline, that is
_not_ protected by copyright. The law has not entirely followed this for 3D
shapes, but in part that is because we don't have enough good cases about
them yet.

And then we have the matter of the *function* of the particular shape. The
overall cubesat shape is constrained by a standard and thus functional
rather than expressive and not copyright protectible. Something like a
parabolic antenna would be constrained by phyiscal law and thus again
functional rather than expressive and not copyright protectible.

Of course I'd love to write an expert report on this topic or help an
attorney argue all of this in court.


> 2) In my experience, it is a rare organization that would be happy with a
> director having an informal discussion with "enough" other directors and
> then releasing its intellectual property.


Is this about Michelle and the model? I am not going to argue that she
isn't headstrong, etc. It may be the kind of headstrong we need. There is
about 50 years of inertia to overcome.


> 3) Your opinion that AMSAT shouldn't pursue patents dumbfounds me.


Wow! No, I am going to stand by that one. First, AMSAT as a public benefit
non-profit should not be standing in the way of other people's research and
work. Second, if it does so, it will be subject to companies bringing their
patent portfolios to bear against AMSAT, which would entirely hobble
AMSAT's ability to build and launch satellites. Every software program and
I am sure everything as complex as a cubesat practices a patent claim that
is currently in force if never litigated. What we have right now is a sort
of tacit detante, which is the best we can do within current law. This is a
topic I have explored thoroughly for Open Source projects. Start to issue
patents to AMSAT, and we will be on the radar of very many companies with
larger portfolios than ours.

The only workable strategy would be a purely defensive portfolio, and I
can't see that it's worth the cost.

If AMSAT creates something that is commercially significant in the
> satellite field, protectable by any form of IP, that invention should not
> be disclosed to others until an informed decision is made as to its
> potential value.  If there is a good business case for protecting the
> asset, that should be done.  I expect there are enough members that could
> do this work pro bono, if the work could actually provide AMSAT with
> licensing income or leverage for collaboration opportunities.
>

The problem with all of this is that AMSAT has to bring lawsuits to enforce
its patents, and threaten to do so before anyone else would even consider
paying for a patent. A patent is simply a license to sue. Meanwhile, we
have to be 1000 times more careful to search patents about everything in
our satellites. No thank you.

I expect many AMSAT volunteers already know this from their work elsewhere,
> but figured it was worth mentioning, as its seems some folks may not.


I am sure that many people know something of the patent policy of their
companies. Most probably don't understand it fully. But that doesn't apply
to a public benefit non-profit, for sensible strategic reasons. This is one
of those areas where a corporate attorney could give us the entirely wrong
advice.

    Thanks

    Bruce