Re: [oc] VHDL code for Bluetooth module

[Victor the Cleaner <jonathan@canuck.com>]

On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 05:55:04PM +1100, John Dalton wrote:
> 
> > Currently I am looking for leagal issues about
> > implementing bluetooth baseband core because I noticed
> > that even if the spec is royality free but I ca n not
> > implement it if I am not an SIG member or I'll be
> > violating some patents used by bluetooth, do you have
> > any idea on how to solve this problem?

Can you give us some pointers to the sources you're referencing?
Where is the spec you're looking at, and exactly what does it say
about its terms of use, licenses, royalties, and SIG membership?

I'm sure the information is there, but may need some interpretation.
If the way it works is that by joining the SIG you're granted some
sort of license, it might be a worthwhile thing to do, assuming the
cost isn't insane - or they're willing to grant OC a membership.

Btw, this raises another question:  Has anyone considered incorporating
OpenCores as a non-profit corporation, so it can have legal standing in
such cases, accept 401(c)3 donations, etc.?
 
> Does a patent violation occur when you *design*
> a system, or when you *build* a system?

That sorta becomes an academic argument, I think.  Although doing a
design is, strictly speaking, "use", nobody's going to know, and if
they do, they won't care.  The patent holder is only going to care
if someone is deriving material benefit from the use - or is depriving
the patent holder of the material benefit to which they're entitled 
under their patent rights.
 
> I always thought the idea of a patent system
> was to encourage design and innovation.
> The theory being that without a patent system
> everyone keeps their secrets close to their
> chest, slowing the rate of innovation.  With a
> patent system information gets shared speeding
> the pace of innovation.  Using this reasoning,
> I would think it is always okay to use info
> in patents to design things, the only problem
> being once you build something and compete with
> the patent holder.

That's half of it.  The reason for the 17-year patent protection
limit is to encourage the inventor to innovate and exploit the
invention in a *timely* fashion.  As in: Okay, we've given you
exclusive rights to commercial exploitation of this Good Idea, 
now get off your ass and do something with it, because in 17 years
anyone who wants it is free to use it.

Jonathan