What is the legality of using patented hardware with open-source software? I'm working with hardware from a company that is very serious about intellectual property protection. There are over 2,000 patents filed on the technology this hardware enables. The hardware is intended to be used with software made by the same company. It is also highly protected by patents/copyright etc. I am currently working with an open-source software that can be compiled in such a way as to work with this very closed-source hardware. What legal rights might this company have to restrict me from developing my project? Note: I am not profiting from it, but would be interested in hearing how/if that might affect the legality. My gut feeling is that, for example, my laptop might be made with closed-source hardware and run patented software, but I could still use it like a frisbee if I choose without risking infringement. Isn't this the same situation? Thanks for any thoughts!
There is something called the exhaustion doctrine that says that once the holder of a patent sells a patented device, they have relinquished control over that particular instance of the patent implementation. Anyone who legally purchases this hardware has the right to run whatever software they want on it, as long the software is otherwise legal (software designed to defeat DRM would be an example of software that is is not legal).
The creator of the software doesn't provide any warranty. If you feel confident in the quality of the software, nothing stops you from providing a warranty. If the software doesn't meet your guarantees, you will have to pay out because you provided the warranty, depending on the terms. Not the creator of the software because they explicitly didn't provide any warranty. If that's what you want to do, go ahead. I wouldn't. You don't have to republish under the BSD license, which you wouldn't. You must attach the license terms, which clarifies the role of the original creators, and that they don't give a warranty. Doing this allows you to copy the software. It doesn't mean you can't provide a warranty.
Yes, the original designer (or the designer's employer) would have a legal right to the design, insofar as it included protectable design elements. Copyright on the design of &quot;useful&quot; products is limited, and the exact limitations vary from country to country. However, it might be hard for the designer (or the company for which the designer works) to prove that the creation was original, and was not an actual leak. But if the designer or company has retained sufficient evidence to convince a court, then a suit could be successful. Such a possibility makes me doubt that Apple or a similar large company would do that. The risks are too great when a design of their own creation would probably be quite good enough for their purposes. But that is all speculation.
The legal issues are too black and white to have any meaningful impact on an ethics discussion. The IP belongs to A and B can't use it. A's not planning to build a product around the patent is irrelevant to the law and I do not see it bring up any ethical issue, but some people who do not understand patent law might. There might be ethics issues if A hired Josh with the specific plan to fire him as soon as the application was filed and intentionally misled him about these plans. Another issue might be Josh's duty to not disclose A's confidential information (the application does not become public right away), and Josh's duty to not draw B into developing an infringing product.
The word "use", for purposes of trademark law, is a term of art meaning it is used in a way that may be a violation of law if not licensed. Not all uses of trademarks are violations. Similarly, there is a difference between using the name of a company and the brand of products or services sold by that company. In any case, using a trademark or trade name to REFERENCE a company or brand is not a trademark infringement. For instance, I don't need any license to tell you that I own a Dell or HP or Apple product, or that my software will run on a Dell or HP or Apple product. The use of a logo is, however, more sensitive and likely to require detailed legal analysis, if not an actual license.
pure functionality is not copyrightable Copyright does not protect purely functional things, it only can protect the execution as Brown Bag Software v Symantec Corp established back in 1992. In fact, even before that, Data East v Epyx established in 1988 that it takes the availability of the software to be copied to even get a case, but that was refined in Capcom v Data East in 1994: There are unprotectable elements, aka Scenes a Faire, things that are just standard and have to be done. A lever that pulls on a rope is strictly functional, that the lever is pink with orange stripes is not. A button with the label &quot;save&quot; on it has no artistic choice but a purely functional one and its presence, in general, can't be copyrighted as that is standard. Even standard placements like &quot;top left corner&quot; or &quot;bottom right corner&quot; for the button are just standard enough and make that part of the UI uncopyrightable. Indeed, even the idea of a Graphic User Interface is unprotectable as Apple v Microsoft (1994) held. But if you put that save button upside down on the left edge of the screen and only visible if you mouse over it, then you have shown artistic choice beyond the mere functionality - but also very bad UI/UX design. Code can be copyrighted. Computer code can be copyright protected, but you protect only those elements that are protectable in the first place. This means only elements that are not for example mandated by the sheer functionality of the underlying programming language. If the programming language mandates that all programs start with Program launch {variable variable variables} then that part is not copyrighted by you, but your choice of variable names can be. Code can be made from functionality requirements There was a famous SCOTUS case that had pretty much this question: Can a company dissect a software and then take the determined functionality of the whole software to their own programming team? Bowers v Baystate court held an Ethical Wall will not constitute infringement, if properly executed and the EULA doesn't prohibit it. Work for hire/Employees Now employers always get pretty much all the rights to a program's code anyway. If you are contracted from the outside, it might be work-for-hire and the contract might include such a transfer. In either case, there are no rights left for the hired person to sue over. Only if the contracted outside coder does not have a work-for-hire type work and there is no transfer clause, they do have rights in the work that they can sue over at all. But Work For Hire is a very complex topic on its own - and requires you to review your contracts and get a lawyer.
Without a patent, your inventions are not protected (except as trade secrets). If you publish your findings, anyone can use them. It is possible to patent the specific design of your chassis. Design patents, which cover the specific aesthetic design of something, can be less expensive than utility patents, which cover functional aspects. Although your chassis is designed with functionality in mind, it will also embody an aesthetic design. That said, enforcement of patent rights (or any other rights you might hope protect your chassis) is orders of magnitude more expensive (typically millions of dollars) than merely obtaining a patent. Thus, even if you do obtain protection for the chassis design or the method of designing it, your budget may make it impractical to effectively take advantage of those protections, unless a law firm is willing to take the case on contingency.
For the GPL &quot;family&quot; of open source licenses, the answer is no. The GPL FAQ answers a closely related question: I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this? (#NoMilitary) No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user. More generally, a license that limits who can use a program, or for what, is not a free software license. I'd also recommend looking into &quot;Why programs must not limit the freedom to run them&quot; (the page linked by the FAQ). Stallman there argues (among other lines) that copyright is about limiting, well, copies rather than running the program. Similar to limiting the production of copies of a book as opposed to restricting what you are allowed to do with the information contained in the book. (I may add: or restricting who is allowed to read it.) Also, &quot;Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them.&quot; (So this is basically the FSF's position) The OSI definition of what requirements a software license must meet in order to be considered open source by them has relevant clauses: Free Redistribution (though this says that anyone can distribute the software, it does not directly talk about restricting to whom the software may be given) No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The OSI has a newsletter post &quot;Open Source responds to the Russia-Ukraine war: First thoughts from the Executive Director&quot;, which links to a further discussion on the topic. This is more about politics and ethics than legal questions. However, I think it's relevant in 2 ways: For the situation at hand: They point out that while the open source definitions do not allow the license to have such restrictions, there is nothing that forces you (or a repository provider) to serve &quot;customers&quot; from all regions worldwide. I.e., geoblocking downloads is not prohibited by the FOSS licenses. It does show that there is a discussion on licenses that are somewhat more restrictive than the current open source definitions. As David Siegel points out, there's nothing to keep you from putting such restrictions into a proprietary license. And if there are sufficiently many people who want to do that, we may see &quot;more restricted open source&quot; licenses in the future. (IANAL, but I'd expect there may be limits to what can be restricted in a boilerplate license wrt. anti-discrimination laws.) Independently of what the license allows, people are anyways bound by general law, e.g. sanctions.