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. 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.  And AMSAT should not be happy with it.  It might be OK in an open source world, but it certainly is not the norm elsewhere.  In this case it may have been fine, but it's hardly the model of responsible intellectual property stewardship. 3) Your opinion that AMSAT shouldn't pursue patents dumbfounds me.  While patents are often pursued where they shouldn't be, you can't make that naked statement a priori. You must appreciate AMSAT is blessed with a wealth of technical expertise and experience.  To suggest AMSAT might not generate valuable, protectable inventions in the course of its work totally fails to recognize AMSAT's organizational capabilities.  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. 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. Scott ka9p

From: Bruce Perens via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org To: Michelle Thompson mountain.michelle@gmail.com Cc: AMSAT BB amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Tue, Jul 14, 2020 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Who I'm voting for (long)

I am not entirely sure that it would have been copyrightable, in any case.

17 USC 102(b): In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Such things are the domain of patent rather than copyright. And we can discuss another time why AMSAT should not pursue patents.

Of course, most people stick a copyright declaration on things without ever understanding that. Don't try to take it to court. _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: https://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb

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@perens.com wrote:

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.

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