Open Licensing—Advanced Sharing - Open-Source Lab: How to Build Your Own Hardware and Reduce Research Costs - page 46

classic patent thicket 33 where many patents actually have overlapping claims). Once someone
has acquired a patent, all copies, regardless of the copier's knowledge of the patent , infringe upon
that patent. So if you make anything that has been patented, you are infringing and could, in
theory, be sued. It gets worse, as even using a patented device without authorization infringes
on the patent. In addition, the line between repair and reproduction is murky, and may be-
come an area of increased scrutiny as the use of 3-D printing (discussed in Chapter 5 ) to re-
place parts expands [ 36 ] . If you work at a university, a technology transfer officer or university
lawyer might help you wade through the quagmire of patents and complete any paperwork
for you, but resources spent on legal requirements are not being invested in your lab on actual
innovation. Most innovators ignore the mess as, as of now, corporations are not coming after
individual patent infringers who do not attempt to enter the market with products, and any
time or money invested in paying atention to these patent issues is lost to innovation. This
entire line of inquiry becomes more important as 3-D printing and digital manufacturing be-
come common place and challenge the current IP paradigm. If you are interested in this area,
If recommend Weinberg's introductory article It Will Be Awesome If They Don't Screw It Up [ 36 ] .
Reassuringly, and perhaps surprisingly, it is concluded that—within the UK at least—private
3-D printer owners making items for personal use and not for gain are exempt from the vast
majority of IP constraints, and that commercial users, though more restricted, are less so that
might be imagined [ 37 ] .
3.7 Summary and Conclusions
IP law is quickly evolving and mutating (or perhaps even on its way to extinction?) as both
the challenges to the entire concept expand at the same time new technologies (such as 3-D
printing, which we will discuss in Chapter 5 ) make the policing of IP-related transgressions, if
ifnot impossible, improbable and highly intrusive. There is still a great need for bolstering the
legal position of the public domain and creating defensive publications to protect the intellec-
tual commons from the last of the poachers. The legal protections to do this provided by the
currently practiced IP licenses for OSHW are unclear. The OSHWA is working to develop a
simple method (following CC) for innovators to understand, select and apply OSHW licenses
to accelerate innovation diffusion and drive up the adoption. As of this writing, they are ifnot
ready and although the licenses we have now have unproven legal validity, they act as a social
mechanism, which can assist innovators as it provides entrance into the open-source commu-
nity (the numerous benefits of which were outlined in Chapter 2 and the many examples in
the next several chapters). If you follow the Golden Rule and respect the rights of other innov-
ators, the open-source community will repay any investment you make many times over.
References
1. Hardin G. The tragedy of the commons. Science . 1968;162(3859):1243-1248.
2. Ostrom E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action . Cam-
bridge University Press 1990.
3. Ostrom E, Walker J. Communication in a commons: cooperation without external en-
forcement. In: Laboratory research in political economy . 1991;287-322.
4. Diez T, Ostrom E, Stern PC. The struggle to govern the commons. Science .
2003;302(5652):1907-1912.
5. Gomulkiewicz RW, Williamson ML. A brief defense of mass market software license
agreements. Rutgers Comput Technol Law J . 1996;22(1):335-368.