2 ms·
> so I don't understand why they are using that as an example about not being able to play around with something or write blog posts. It's seems pretty clear-c
by lelanthran 3y ago
> so I don't understand why they are using that as an example about not being able to play around with something or write blog posts.
It's seems pretty clear-cut to me:
Q: What Would Prevent A Company From Shipping A Product Based On OpenThread Without Joining The Thread Group?
A: (roughly) You will be sued
Now, what does the word "product" in "Shipping a product based on OpenThread" mean?
A product is any (or some combination of) the following:
1. A devkit
2. A book
3. A blog post
4. Any hardware that uses Thread
So, yeah, you can't write a tutorial for using Thread, or make a doorbell for your mum's house, or tell your friend how to read the protocol, or start up a /r/thread community to help each other use it.
Looks pretty damned locked down to me, without at least the FRAND loopholes.
- IanCal 3y agoWhere is that definition of product from? Is that in their license agreement?
- lelanthran 3y agoWhat is your definition of a product based on (from their license) "Thread technology and Thread Group specifications"? Why would a book, or tutorial, or blog post be excluded from the clause "Thread technology and Thread Group specifications"?
- scotty79 3y agoObviously a device because when hardware peopl say product they don't mean book or youtube video.
- PeterisP 3y agoWhy would the license matter in cases where your actions aren't restricted by patent law and you don't need to accept any license and any limitations in it? If you have a valid patent for e.g "A Device or Appparatus that does FooBar", you get certain exclusive rights for just that - that device is the "patented invention" where making/using/selling one is an infringement of the patent, but the description of that device (for example, the patent text itself) is not. A book about doing FooBar isn't a device that does FooBar, and neither is a tutorial or a blog post - the description of the patent is public, the knowledge in it is public, and you're legally allowed to redistribute that knowledge. However, using the "patented invention" is an infringement[1], with no exceptions, so if the reader of that book or blog post would like to follow it and actually implement the patented method or follow the patented process in the privacy of their home, that would technically be a violation even if they are unlikely to be sued as the patent holder won't find out about it. [1] 35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
- scotty79 3y agoObviously only 1 and 4. Neither book or post uses tech. It can talk about tech, describe it, but never use it in any manner. Mum's doorbell might be gray area as you can easily say that it's still your doorbel, you just chose to install it wherever you chose to install it.
- impossiblefork 3y agoThere's no way that a book or blog post breaches any patents.
- lelanthran 3y ago> There's no way that a book or blog post breaches any patents. What does that have to do with anything? They don't say "we will sue you if you use our patents", they say "we will sue you if you use our specification".
- impossiblefork 3y agoAh, I see now that they demand an agreement before access to it. Then it might work.
- micahdeath 3y agoi find it curious they sell you a kit but the license doesn't allow usage - i'm curious how that would hold up in court....