On Aug 11 2013 1:27 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 11 August 2013 15:20:21 EBo did opine: > >> On Aug 11 2013 7:44 AM, Kenneth Lerman wrote: >> > On 8/11/2013 3:52 AM, Viesturs Lؤپcis wrote: >> >> 2013/8/11 Gisela Thieme <[email protected]> >> >> >> >>> Hello, >> >>> >> >>> Let me contribute the coding of an algorithm that allows the >> >>> volumetric >> >>> compensation of parallel kinematics. >> >>> It is written in MATLAB for the moment. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I think that this easy way of calibration can be added to the >> >>> project. As >> >>> far as I know, it is not implemented in >> >>> >> >>> other CNC Controllers, SIEMENS for example, so it will overtrump >> >>> commercial controller solutions. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/42963-parallel-k >> >>> inematics-calibration-without-parameter-identification/ >> >> >> >> You wrote that it is based on a patent. I found that it was filed >> >> last >> >> year, so it most definitely is long time, before it will expire. >> >> Since LinuxCNC is used also on industrial machines for commercial >> >> purposes, >> >> implementing your contribution will be a patent infringement: >> >> >> >> >> http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2013014056&r >> >> ecNum=14&docAn=EP2012064162&queryString=FP:(robot)&maxRec=36752 >> > >> > It is a patent infringement (at least in the US) even if it is for >> > non-commercial use. The odds are just better that you won't get >> > caught >> > and no one will care. >> >> you might want to check with the new patent laws -- they were >> changed >> in the last couple of years to coincide with the EU laws. Now, >> thekno >> clock on the patent starts when it is filed, not when it is granted, >> and >> it uses a first to file not first to invent doctrine. Part of that >> may >> have allowed non-commercial use because supposedly the idea is that >> you >> have to be able to build something as part of research -- to make it >> better (and generate follow-on patents). Just remember that IANAL >> and >> things have changed. Maybe there is someone out there that can >> comment >> on this sidebar, but the second poster (Viesturs?) has a valid point >> - >> people use this commercially and this is a clear violation. > > My contribution to rowing this boat compares to using a toothpick for > an > oar, but I can't see having the chance discovery result in a C&D + > damages > procedure. Figuratively speaking, its that famous grand piano > dropped from > the 17th floor, and we discover it as it passes the 3rd floor, > directly > above us. > > That would not be 'cool' unless we can produce prior art to > invalidate the > patent. Even that might cost $100k for the lawyers to pronounce it > correctly.
Maybe I was not clear. I am saying that this should not be added unless the patent holders gave us a license to implement and distribute. As far as the new patent laws, I only know a little of the recent changes that I needed to know for work. But if the guy that implemented it in Matlab wants to contact the patent holder and ask if we can add it to an open-source project. Maybe they would be OK with it and maybe not. But the most important thing is to ask or don't touch it. EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
