I can hear the argument already. Through licensing, we help keep these ideas available for all to use. We aren't in this to just make money. We are a friend of the entrepreneur and help afford business opportunities where there would otherwise be none.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
You should have to prove active development or at least intent in order to hold a patent. I'm with you Tim. This is sick.
+1 and apple need to stop patent rectangle with round corners!
]]>If they can get a patent for a vague idea they had without any kind of implementation, then any science fiction writer should file a patent for any futuristic thing they dream up which might become possible one day, even if they don't know how.
+1
]]>http://www.solidoodle.com/solidoodle-mo … -firmware/
They did post this but I don't think many people caught it.
Still no license/attribution, but its a start!
]]>They did post this but I don't think many people caught it.
]]>About the only place I see patents making a lot of sense is pharmaceuticals, where the cost of development:cost of production ratio is really high. Still, usually that is recouped within a few years.
The CC-BY-NC license is really appealing to me - it is what the Filastruder is released under. While technically not open source (-NC licenses are not open source), it allows people to make it for themselves and remix it.
Speaking of open source, has anyone seen Solidoodle's printrboard files/firmware?
]]>I can also however feel the fear in small companies, it can be a bit confusing. I have been taling to my boss (small 13 person company) to consider allowing some GNU GeneralPublicLicense usage, because we have no problem giving source code to our customers, though the idea of putting code out in the public just feels weird to those from a different background and/or generation. It was something of value that was put into the system, and took money to produce. But the only people who'd care about it would really be our customers if anything ever happened to us and they needed long term code support. Oh, and me, because I'd have to remove all the potentially unprofessional comments.
Anyway, that's a slightly different topic, because it gets more into code "production." Other notions, like how we build machines, my boss can see it in a relatively open mindset. He sees no point in patenting the technology we invent in house because things like industry specific temperature controlled boxes (cough: Stratsys), are absolutely absurd to patent, and we'd get trashed in legal fees if anyone actually infringed our patent and no one would benefit except the lawyers.
/End rant. Sorry bout that.
In another mindset, though, I can assume Bill Gates just considers himself a smart ideas guy and wants to capitalize in the most efficient way on his ideas. Which is not intrinsically wrong, but complicates our world in the consequences. I doubt he sees these places as idea-destructive as they probably are, or else I don't think he would really be into it. Certainly, whatever residual greed and wealth desire he naturally has, is probably relatively diminished by now.
]]>This American Life had an episode recently that looked into the business in a little more depth. If you have a plausible, vague yet possible worthwhile idea and patent it, you can sell it to Intellectual Ventures. Just make sure you include a clause that gives you a small percentage of any profits that come as a result of the patent. That would include licensing, but also settlements that come as a result of IV using the patent to threaten companies with lawsuits. $100 million in revenue from that practice is not out of the ordinary.
]]>BLAH BLAH BLAH
You should have to prove active development or at least intent in order to hold a patent. I'm with you Tim. This is sick.
]]>This isn't specifically 3D Printing related, but it is a big part of why I am anti-patent. Bill Gates has done a lot of good philanthropically, but this is pretty saddening.
]]>