Comments on: .patentvs. Open Source vs. Copyright*

By: Strandberg Guitarworks » Blog Archive » Credit Where Credit is Due

Strandberg Guitarworks » Blog Archive » Credit Where Credit is Due — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:49:03 +0000

[...] The tagline on my business cards is “Innovation & Collaboration”. This sums up in two simple words the aspects I value the most in my guitar design work. I try to engage others in my design process and offer my own thoughts and ideas as openly as I can in several forums. I license the work I publish on this site under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike license so that others can take advantage of my ideas in their own work. I have also discussed this at length in an earlier post. [...]

By: paolo

paolo — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:56:06 +0000

Hi,
I read now about your problem.
I sent two mail to you, but I like to write here also.
Everything published on your site is under Creative Common License.
So everybody want to use you project is free to do it, according with licence.
Reading at the bottom of the site you can read the condition, and if i’m not wrong, I can build or publish every proyect of the site, but adding the intellectual property owner (ola strandberg) and the CC logo.
So if somebody use you intellectually property, you can ask to him to publish the owner and the CC.
You are not alone, ask to a big linux community, or directly to Creative Commons.
I’m sure you will found some help.
Sorry for little English.
Best regards

By: Ola Strandberg

Ola Strandberg — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:02:29 +0000

Thanks for your comment Alex. I agree with you regarding not having the time, money or dedication to pursue patent infringements. And, what’s more, I’m not sure I have the time or money to file for IPR. Considering the amount of patents there are out there for guitar bridges, it’s not an easy field to penetrate either. There’s always the option of inventing someting and license/sell the idea to someone else and let that someone pursue the patent. But for the immediate future, I need my ideas myself to move forward in the development.

The jury is still out. I would love to hear more views on the subject.

By: Alexander Oest

Alexander Oest — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:24:32 +0000

I am so glad that you bring this up. I think it is a very important question.

I am not sure which strategy is best for you, but I know which one I would prefer that you take: The open one. That will allow me and a lot of other readers to follow your development. We will be inspired and entertained and perhaps suggest useful alterations to your designs.

Alternatively, if you’re going for old-fashioned IPRs on you inventions, development is most likely to take place in secrecy, by you alone or in an closed group of participants.

I can see the problem of people using your design without proper attribution. I think this problem is hard to overcome because there’s no money involved. If you sue them, you are going to spend money on an attorney. And for what? For an attribution that might even be of little value in terms of goodwill. They probably know that. And all they risk (I imagine) is that they will have to attribute you properly in the future. I am no expert, but I have not heard of attribution violators paying heavy damages to the rights holder. I haven’t looked into it, though. But it seems to me that unless you’re a decent person who thinks the inventor should have his due credit, there isn’t really much incentive to respect the license term.

On the other hand, if you patent your inventions, there is still the risk of someone violating them. And if they did, would you have the money, time and dedication to do anything about it? I wouldn’t!

But then, to me, guitar construction is only a hobby. I don’t expect to make any money from it. Your situation might be different. But I would sorely miss studying your inventions and following your thought process if you decide that secrecy and patenting is the necessary way for you to go.