Re: [ox-en] robotics
- From: Rich Walker <rw shadow.org.uk>
- Date: 13 Mar 2003 01:40:32 +0000
On 7 Mar 2003, Rich Walker wrote:
Graham wrote:
as someone
passionate about the gpl you must have had discussions about open-sourcing
the designs and design process for robots.
Yes; in fact, we spend time pushing this in the networks we're in.
The philosophy page says your
target is eventually to be able to produce useful robots anyone can
afford. Yet looking for details of the robots there are statements like
'we cant say much about how this works because we're applying for
patents'.
As far as I know, no-one has yet said that patents on mechanical
engineering are a bad thing. No-one seems to be up in arms about
hardware patents. This is for a good reason - if you want to find
someone to bring a physical object (for which production costs are
substantial) to market, then the object should be protected in such a
way that clones don't appear
Your argument implies that manufacture is only possible if there is
monopoly? If that is true, then there is really no hope for any
free/opensource development of anything that can be manufactured... :-(
No; rather that if you want to, under present economic structures, begin
to manufacture something novel, for which a large investment will ahve
to be made before a return starts, the investor will need to be
convinced that such a return is possible. The presence of patents on the
device is one way to make that case; it also makes the *other* case,
that no-one else is going to torpedo the process with a patent when the
investment has been made.
Otherwise, you could never persuade anyone to set up a manufacturing
outfit again.
This is not true in general. Today I bought a new toilet and a plastic
mini-greenhouse. I don't believe either of these items is likely to be
patented, but they were certainly manufactured. Competition does not
make manufacturing impossible.
Look at them closely - you'll probably be surprised by the list of
patents on them. Also, there will be design rights, copyrights and other
such IPR residing in them.
The issue applies most severely, I think, with a completely new product, where a
large investment is necessary to start the process.
Hence our viewpoint - we'll patent the ironware in order to be able to
make (enough) money to develop the rest of it. We have no real desire to
be a software company, and so Free software makes sense in that context.
I can see that that is entirely practical, but I have trouble seeing how
you're going to combine it with the open development you talk about below.
If you see a piece of robot hardware your organisation can produce and
sell, and you make it compatible with the open software, then you can do
so. We have no interest in stopping you doing that. We see producing
software as a material expense, like coffee, steel or rubber.
We are working on a more open design process, at least in the areas of
electronics and software. We're also a member of CLAWAR (site currently
in hyperspace) a network developing open modular technology for robots,
amongst other things. Hopefully, we should be publishing some of our
software and hardware design work later this month - masochistic
alpha-testers (with hardware construction experience) wanted.
So, the answer is, it's happening slowly.
I don't have any particular iterest in robotics, but have been interested
in development of free IC designs where there are similar issues.
Worse, I'd think, given the spiralling cost of IC masks, the number of
them needed, the verification difficulties and the limited number of
process plants...
The problem is in reconciling the first part of your reply - that patents
are necessary to prevent clones in order to persuade manufacturers to
make devices - with the second part - that the design process can be made
more open. I don't have an answer to this either.
74 series TTL.
If you and I both sell a 74x181, the differences between my FUNNY
process and your SHOOTING process manifest themselves in different
fan-in and fan-out numbers, different propagation delays, and different
power draw and ground bounce. But the *logic* is the same. A designer
who wants a 32-bit adder can synthesise it out of either chip; possibly
leaving the final selection to the purchasing department (that needs a
very tolerant design, but you know what I mean).
But I do know that when
recently someone mailed on the opencores.org list that they had ideas
for a particular kind of reconfigurable processor my first thought was
'that exactly matches some ideas I've been thinking of - I should join
in with this'. Then when told the guy would be patenting the idea in order
to get it manufactured, my second thought was 'I'm not working for free
for some company that's going to own my input to this'.
Quite - and that's a reasonable response. But, if they are going to take
out patents, then they had better *not* be software patents. (I
assume).
Look - I want to build robots. I also want to eat. There are no people
paying for the development of robots. Therefore, I sink my time at
minimal cost into the development of robots, hoping to make the money
back later, or at least to have benefitted the commons in the process.
If our organisation makes a physical object and wants to sell it, then
we are entitled to do so. (Pending replacement of the current economic
system in a broader way. Tell me when that is going to happen, so I can
plan for it). In order that we don't get SonICo coming round and issuing
a cease-and-desist order, we need patents to say "we did it first". If
you want to use those patents, you should talk to us about our licensing
terms. If you want to copy the thing we have designed, when our design
contains patentable novelty, then you are exploiting us.
If we make a virtual object, and do not issue it under the GPL, and do
not attempt to use "fatuous" patents to prevent innovation in the field,
and sell the virtual object for money, then we would be a "good"
software house or music publisher.
If we make a virtual object and issue it under the GPL, then you have
the usual GPL rights.
If we can reach a situation where no designer solving useful problems
need s to be paid for their work, then we can talk about the removal of
patents on physical objects.
Maybe that's unreasonably selfish, but I can't believe it's an unusual
reaction.
In the context it was in, it was a perfect reaction. No-one should
contribute for free to someone else's product. The problem I have is
that, if no-one uses the same or similar hardware, then no-one has an
interest in the software; conversely, if people *do* use the software,
then my selling the hardware looks like taking advantage of them. Like,
I suppose, every time another hacker buys an intel or amd cpu, intel or
amd are taking advantage of the linux-kernel hackers.
It's a hard problem.
Really, it comes to this, for me:
in order to change the world by creating the things we are trying to
create, we need to both draw in traditional industry, and find money to
fill in the gaps. At present, this hybrid "open interfaces and software,
IPR'd physical objects" solution is as far as we've got. If you have a
way of advancing it *without* telling us to work for no money, please
tell me.
regards
Graham
PS I also believe that patents are in general a bad thing, so I'm starting
from a biased viewpoint - but I've put this in a 'ps' instead of the body
of the mail because I think it's a separate argument...
No, it's all part of the same argument. Patents now are a black sucking
hole. There are some interesting ideas in the area they came
from. Gerald Winstanley proposed (in one of his Digger rants) that each
district (I can't remember the size of a district) have two postmasters;
amongst their jobs was the distribution of innovation to other districts
for use by the people. But, he'd taken care of the basics of life prior
to that. Bucky Fuller suggested that, if you give people the means to
live, and the time and space to do so, they will innovate at a furious
rate and that innovation will repay the costs tenfold. At present,
though, we have to cover basic costs for the duration of innovative
projects, and we have to cover the capital investments necessary for
production.
The worst thing about the last sentence above is that one of the things
that falls out of robotics in due course is a transformation of the
economics of production so that mass production need not be the
corollary of industrialisation.
cheers, Rich.
p.s.: if anyone *has* the money, we can do this with solely-defensive
patents with automatic licensing at nominal-to-0 cost. But it needs the
investment to cover wages, materials and
manufacturing. Money-where-mouth-is-time?
--
rich walker | technical person | Shadow Robot Company | rw shadow.org.uk
front-of-tshirt space to let 251 Liverpool Road |
London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/