On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:18 PM Scott McDonald via AMSAT-BB < amsat-bb@amsat.org> wrote:
Bruce- As a member I have to take exception to most of your note.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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