
Hardware Isn't Generally Copyrightable (2012) - segfaultbuserr
https://web.archive.org/web/20120114234704/http://wiki.openhardware.org/Hardware_Isn%27t_Generally_Copyrightable
======
Ecco
I'm not a lawyer, but that seems super weird, to the point where I'm not sure
any of this is actually true.

Why couldn't the actual design of a PCB be copyrighted, for instance? I mean,
one could argue that there's as much intellectual property being created when
you route a PCB than when you write a book.

And if it's about manufacturing, why wouldn't the argument apply to books too?
According to this document's logic, the inner meaning ("schematics") of a book
could be copyrighted, but not the book itself, so that I would be free to
print and sell as many copies as I want of any given book. Doesn't seem quite
right to me...

~~~
pravda
>Why couldn't the actual design of a PCB be copyrighted,

Don't worry, it is!

Schematics are copyrighted as well.

But someone can take your schematic, lay out their own board, and produce a
exact equivalent of your circuit, using all the same components.

~~~
jbay808
This should be higher up.

PCBs are considered more like artwork.

~~~
tonyarkles
IANAL, but if that’s true now it’s because copyright law has changed. In the
past that wasn’t the case:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesizer_clone](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesizer_clone)

~~~
wgj
None of the examples there involve directly copying PCBs.

------
1cvmask
This is a great line from a Wired article on hardware copyright and copyleft:

In the US, copyright does not cover the functional aspects that the design
describes, but does cover decorative aspects. When one object has decorative
aspects and functional aspects, you get into tricky ground (*).

[https://www.wired.com/2015/03/richard-stallman-how-to-
make-h...](https://www.wired.com/2015/03/richard-stallman-how-to-make-
hardware-designs-free/)

~~~
Iv
In France that's the same for software. I had not realized that until my lab
made me sign a very specific copyright sale contract.

Mathematical formulas are considered unpatentable and uncopyrightable and
legally, programs have been recognized to be equivalent to mathematical
formulas.

So only the formatting, variable name, decoration of code is the ground for
copyright. My understanding is that if you were to run the code through an
obfuscator, the result would be free of copyrightable items.

To my despair I never found anyone playful enough to help me explore how solid
this reasoning was.

~~~
tzs
By that argument, running copyrighted code through a compiler would produce a
binary that is not copyrighted.

~~~
barbegal
Here's an article discussing that argument
[http://freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/what_if_copyright_d...](http://freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/what_if_copyright_didnt_apply_binary_executables/)

------
schappim
We got sued in Australia by an American company for using a open-source PCB
[https://github.com/sparkfun/MaKeyMaKey](https://github.com/sparkfun/MaKeyMaKey)
.

The claims were under trade mark infringement (note SparkFun didn't sue us)
and the PCB layout as "deceptively similar".

Thankfully we got our money back on insurance.

~~~
kube-system
The design could be open-sourced while at the same time it could reference
trade marks which are the exclusive mark of a particular company.

A classic example of this is CentOS and RHEL. You can fork RHEL all you want,
but you cannot put "Red Hat" on your fork.

~~~
schappim
We were surprised as both the entity that registered the trade marks, and the
trade marks themselves were created years after the designs were first open
sourced.

------
gmoot
It's always puzzled me that it's legal to emulate video game hardware (NES,
SNES, etc.) but not to copy the games. I guess this is why.

~~~
lonelappde
What would emulation by copying? The abstract logic? Emulators aren't hardware
copies.

------
ancarda
Oh it's a shame to see this domain (openhardware.org) isn't up anymore. Does
anyone know what happened? We have been pretty successful in having free/open
software, but it seems there's virtually nothing in the free/open hardware
space

~~~
ecesena
[https://www.oshwa.org](https://www.oshwa.org) maybe?

Free in hw is kind of hard, meaning, who pays for physically manufacturing?

~~~
ancarda
Perhaps it would be possible to send the blueprints to a factory to be
manufactured? I don't really know.

I think in some ways the same concern exists for software but it's much, much
cheaper so you never see it. If you don't want to build the software yourself,
you can get a binary that someone has spent compute time to produce, and may
be paying money to host and make available to you.

Probably the closest equivalent I can think of is you can pay a small fee to
get various Linux distributions on CD or DVD. You are paying for a physical
product to be made then.

Ah, if only we had replicators or very good 3D printers...

------
throwmemoney
[https://www.deepchip.com/items/0547-01.html](https://www.deepchip.com/items/0547-01.html)

SO... since Synopsys, Inc. does NOT have patents on the hand optimization
techniques that every 2nd year engineering student knows how to do with paper
and pencil like logic manipulation, truth tables, and Karnaugh maps; and
because of the 2014 SCOTUS Alice vs. CLS Bank decision it now means Synopsys
can NOT patent logic equation manipulation, truth tables, and Karnaugh maps
that are done by computer.

Did you get that?

Again in general EDA terms: because of this recent Alice decision, all those
EDA patents based on simply implementing an everyday design or verification
technique in software is NOT enough to make it a patentable invention.

This means a great many active EDA SW patents are actually now invalid!

All this because Aart de Geus sent his lawyers on a pre-emptive attack vs.
MENT in his EVE acquisition. It's this one particular SNPS lawsuit that opened
the doors for Alice vs. CLS Bank to come into EDA. Too funny! :)

------
sneak
A special legal protection was created to address this for chip design.

See also: mask works

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_desi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit_layout_design_protection)

~~~
Iv
The title is confusing because they talk about "layout" and "topologies" but
it is just actually lithography masks that are protected by this treaty:

> (ii) 'layout-design (topography)' means the three-dimensional disposition,
> however expressed, of the elements, at least one of which is an active
> element, and of some or all of the interconnections of an integrated
> circuit, or such a three-dimensional disposition prepared for an integrated
> circuit intended for manufacture ...

So if you just express a schematics, with no actual placement, it is not
copyrightable.

------
magicsmoke
This becomes more significant when you consider that software binaries (not
just source code, actual ones and zeros) are copyrightable. Copyleft licenses
like GNU GPL make use of this by requiring distributors of binaries derived
from other GPL works to also release the source code of those derived binaries
to the public. However, in the hardware world you could take a open PCB
design, modify it, and distribute the physical PCBs or use it in your products
without having to publicly release the PCB schematics as well.

------
shamoo
I have no knowledge of IP law and maybe I misunderstood the article, but how
do companies like ARM, who license there designs to other chip companies,
protect their designs from being copied? What's stopping the licensee from
seeing the "publication" (as per the article) of the design, manufacturing the
chip themselves, and not renewing the license/ needing the license in the
future?

~~~
lopmotr
Turns out it's done by a lot of hard work rather than passively collecting
rent:

"Partnerships with large OEMs operate as signals that also generate barriers
to imitation. As pointed out by one of our informants: “If a company like
Samsung or TI is licensing from us, this means it may be difficult to develop
our technology.” Multiple licenses create a psychological barrier to entry. In
addition, the IP that is licensed needs to be complemented by ARM’s customer
services and considerable expertise"

from p22 of here
[https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/uploads/Research/CTM/working_p...](https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/uploads/Research/CTM/working_paper/2015-02-Ferriani-
Garnsey-Lorenzoni-Massa.pdf)

So I suppose somebody could make an ARM clone but they'd have to actually do
it.

An actual licensee would surely be prohibited by the license though.

------
kasbah
My favorite legal work in trying to address this is the 3DPO license
(accompanied by an excellent article describing the issues in more details).

[https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/vol-2-no-2-1-greenbaum/](https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/vol-2-no-2-1-greenbaum/)

------
swebs
Software is copyrightable but hardware is not? So could you just convert byte
code to a schematic of logic gates and be able to share it freely?

------
ngcc_hk
Fpga?

