[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD
Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Mon Mar 13 13:02:14 UTC 2017
I was out Thursday and Friday, but... see attached Federal Register notice regarding this particular patent. I know that Larry was (mostly) pulling everyone's leg, but before anyone gets themselves into trouble, I figured I should put the warning out there.
I'm not a lawyer, as far as I know this doesn't count as an official warning, I'm not representing the US Government (or any other government) in this matter, etc., etc., etc. I just personally don't want to see anyone spend time on something and then get burned in the end. Please don't shoot (or flame) the messenger.
Thanks,
Cem Karan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 3:07 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> Nigel Tzeng wrote:
>
> > Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking moving targets as an example it could be useful to have
> an open source copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 because the libraries and functions used to
> implement the patent could be reusable.
>
>
>
> Nigel, I am avoiding reading that patent because I have no time, but since you did read it I can ask you some questions:
>
>
>
> Is the patent already "reusable" for things other than "detecting, recognizing, and tracking moving targets"? What is the relationship
> between "libraries and functions used to implement the patent" and all those different uses of the patent claims than are disclosed in
> US7460689B1? Are those copyrighted "libraries and functions" themselves patented claims in US7460689B1?
>
>
>
> Without such a patent analysis – that no open source engineer is required to undertake prior to an infringement notice from the patent
> owner – I'm comfortable recommending that we implement such open source software. The hell with random patents tossed out by Nigel
> Tzeng to scare me. :-)
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> "If this had been legal advice it would have been accompanied by a bill."
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 7:18 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the OSD
>
>
>
> Cem,
>
>
>
> To give them a more concrete example (hopefully not a flawed one ☺) I skimmed ARLs patent portfolio.
>
>
>
> Using US7460689B1 System and method of detecting, recognizing, and tracking moving targets as an example it could be useful to have
> an open source copyright license to any USG developed MTI implementation of US7460689B1 because the libraries and functions used to
> implement the patent could be reusable. While a lot of the basic functions may exist today in GDL or SciPy the underlying image
> processing, change map creation, math, etc may have been reusable outside of the context of US7460689B1 and of greater interest to the
> software community when most of those capabilities were only widely available in systems like Matlab or IDL.
>
>
>
> Even more so the software components required to interface with Army systems that would have to be built around any operational MTI
> system. Getting access to source code from another government agency/DoD program isn’t always as painless as one might expect.
>
>
>
> While these could be broken out and individually open sourced it is an additional burden on the Army/DoD Program and it simply may not
> get done. It would be far easier for the program to open source the entire system with the note that US7460689B1 and others apply to
> these 4 subsystems and care must be applied to any reuse of those components.
>
>
>
> I’m also curious of their opinion on the impact of the policy to give away all software patents to Executive Order 10096 and the intent
> that individual government researchers have the opportunity to benefit from their inventions. Is there reason that software inventors
> should have less financial opportunity than hardware inventors?
>
>
>
> What safeguards exist or will exist for the USG inventor that an unrelated ARL or DoD project will not open source code that unknowingly
> implements their patent and provide a free patent grant? What happens to the entity that may have contracted for an exclusive patent
> license agreement for that patent through their technology transfer office? Will the office responsible for approving ARL open source
> releases with patent grants be able to review source code applicability to not just ARL patents but those from the NRL or DOE?
>
>
>
> There is a reason I favor the patent grant language in the Educational Community License v2.0 for GOSS and large research organizations.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
> ObDis: Not speaking for the lab.
>
>
>
> On 3/8/17, 9:36 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)" <license-discuss-
> bounces at opensource.org on behalf of cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> bounces at opensource.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > > wrote:
>
>
>
> I can pass it through ARL's lawyers, as well as pass it to the code.gov
>
> people.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cem Karan
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: License-discuss [Caution-mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-discuss-
> bounces at opensource.org > ] On
>
> > Behalf Of Stephen Kellat
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 10:41 PM
>
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-discuss at opensource.org >
>
> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: patent rights and the
>
> > OSD
>
> >
>
> > All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the
>
> > identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
>
> > contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a
>
> > Web browser.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ----
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Mar 7, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu < Caution-mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu > > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > You know the more I think about this, the disclaimer of patent rights in
>
> > > CC0 is probably best for GOSS because it avoids the attempt for
>
> > a one size fit all patent grant language among different agencies with
>
> > different policies and the complexity under which patent rights are
>
> > awarded to whom under the Bayh-Dole Act and Executive Order 10096.
>
> > >
>
> > > Employees of federal agencies, especially research oriented ones, have
>
> > > some financial interest and rights under 10096.
>
> > >
>
> > > Likewise non-profits and small businesses under Bayh-Dole.
>
> > >
>
> > > IMHO patent grant language in FOSS licenses provide a false sense of
>
> > > security.
>
> > >
>
> > > I would rather the government open source as much as possible regardless
>
> > > of patent rights as long as any known patents are disclosed.
>
> > As seen in Ximpleware v Versata the patents typically only cover a small
>
> > portion of the overall system (VTD-XML). While it is relevant from
>
> > the perspective of being able to use the system as built it is less relevant
>
> > from a code reuse perspective.
>
> > >
>
> > > For large government systems significant software components could often
>
> > > be reused without the specific portions covered under
>
> > patent.
>
> > >
>
> > > So just having a copyright license to the entire project would provide
>
> > > significant value to the community. There is code I wrote 30 years
>
> > ago I'd love to get access to again even if I couldn't use the rest of the
>
> > system.
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > _______________________________________________
>
> > > License-discuss mailing list
>
> > > License-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org >
>
> > > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
> >
>
> > After a less than fabulous day at work for IRS dealing with my tiny corner
>
> > of tax law as well as my accounts work, I am tempted after
>
> > reading this. Perhaps this could be used as well as the rest of this thread
>
> > as pre-decisional input to open a tight Inquiry in the Federal
>
> > Register. That's the first step we can take to move into building a formal
>
> > record for a body of law. Alternatively getting something
>
> > chartered under the Federal Advisory Committees Act might help move this
>
> > forward.
>
> >
>
> > I think the debate has dragged on a bit for more than a few months. Moving
>
> > to where desirable federal policy/policies are adopted is
>
> > probably doable. Could we narrow this down to 3 or fewer courses of action
>
> > that might be explored by ARL counsel in an inquiry notice?
>
> > Even if list participants are the only people that respond to a notice in
>
> > the Federal Register we're still building a useful record for later use
>
> > such as Federal Acquisition Rules changes, for example.
>
> >
>
> > Depending upon what shows up in the President's budget set to drop Monday, I
>
> > either will have a lot of time on my hands coming up or
>
> > an ICTAP certificate plus lots of time on my hands. I want to see Federal
>
> > OSS policy evolve. We have laid the groundwork here but need
>
> > to get it in the official record soon.
>
> >
>
> > Stephen Michael Kellat
>
> > GS-0962-07/1
>
> > These views are solely my own and not those of the US Government. Rank,
>
> > position, grade, and bureau are cited for identification
>
> > purposes only.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > License-discuss mailing list
>
> > License-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org >
>
> > Caution-Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> License-discuss mailing list
>
> License-discuss at opensource.org < Caution-mailto:License-discuss at opensource.org >
>
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss < Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fed Register Notice 2011-10866.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 148159 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170313/8a5aeab9/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6419 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170313/8a5aeab9/attachment.p7s>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list