[amsat-bb] AMSAT IP

[Michelle Thompson]

Since we are talking about IP, let me turn your attention to some actual
problems with intellectual property management at AMSAT.

For example, an entire custom set of HDL cores, donated to AMSAT by
Comtech/AHA, was lost. The NDA was neglected and literally lost until I
brought it up. I insisted Joe Spier go find it for the 2019 annual meeting.

Worse, the license for the community accessible version with GNU Radio
simply not managed. That community totally lost out on something that was
supposed to come to them through this work.

This entire block of IP was simply squandered. Did someone end up with it
that should not have? Because it helps digital modes, was it just
gobblygook to engineering leadership?

If we can't manage this type of data, then how do you think we are doing
managing more important things with harsher repercussions?

Unlike files that describe a toy plastic model, this was advanced error
correcting and control code, designed for space applications, that actually
put us well ahead of many chip manufacturers at the time.

If you want this sort of waste to change, then please vote for Howie
DeFelice, Jeff Johns, and Robert McGwier.

Why? Because the incumbents blindly support the officers that lost this IP,
and will simply re-appoint all of those officers if they win.

AMSAT got this gift, primarily because of Robert McGwier. One of his
students spent the summer doing the work with AHA mentoring him.

Howie DeFelice works in the commercial satellite world and would simply
never let valuable IP walk out the door or fall on the floor.

Jeff Johns is a trained consultant in quality and accountability systems.
People like him annoy the tar out of me at work because I can't get away
with flushing IP down a toilet or giving it to my friends in violation of
an NDA.

Yes, I'm headstrong. But I'm not stupid. Problems like this are what we
should be caring about and voting on, instead of plastic toys.

-Michelle W5NYV




On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:51 PM Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> 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
>