Big Gains for Open Aerospace: Interview with Open Research Institute CEO Michelle Thompson W5NYV

That's not how I read it. I think Michelle said that open source development represents a useful and viable alternative to proprietary development in aerospace, just as it has proven itself useful and viable in software. Open source is especially helpful in aerospace because (as ORI's recent work establishes) it can qualify for the "public domain" exceptions to the otherwise onerous export control regulations.

This is in addition to open source being the best development model for the amateur and amateur satellite services.

[Disclaimer: I am the current president of Amateur Radio Digital Communications, a nonprofit founded by Brian Kantor, WB6CYT (SK), that has supported ORI in their export control and other work. ARDC grants about $6M/year to projects within the scope of our charter. ARDC only funds open source work; i.e., if you want to keep it proprietary, don't ask us.]

It's important to distinguish between "open source" (as usually understood) and the "public domain" exceptions in the export regulations. The latter refer not to a lack of copyright or patent protection, but simply to being readily available to the public. They recognize that it would be silly to require an export license for information in a public talk, published magazine, open web page, etc. In other words, keeping technology secret because of fear of export controls is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it's only meaningful for the government to restrict the dissemination of information that is already tightly held by its owner as proprietary.

The government once tried to apply export controls to publicly available software, specifically open source encryption software. Way back in the 1990s, when I was working professionally in computer and network security, I brought a personal lawsuit against the US State Department over its ruling that even encryption software in the public domain, openly published in a popular textbook ("Applied Cryptography" by Bruce Schneier) was still a "defense article" requiring an export license when on machine-readable media. This ridiculous position had the government turning handsprings. I testified twice to Congress on the topic, and even members of Congress got the joke when I said "According to the State Department, only Americans can type." Two other contemporary cases attacked the same export controls from different angles. In 2000, President Clinton, apparently fearing adverse court precedents, finally relented and allowed the open distribution of publicly available encryption software. This policy change led to the widespread use of encryption on the Internet. Encryption certainly hasn't been a panacea for Internet security, but I shudder to think of what the net would be today without it.

Years later, Michelle and ORI built on this history to establish via formal rulings that amateur satellite technology, developed as open source, qualifies for these same public domain exemptions. (You might think this trivial, obvious and logical, but nothing is ever trivial, obvious or logical when government regulations are involved.) She also suggests that the broader aerospace industry may wish to explore the same path around the export controls for at least some of its work even if the bulk of it remains proprietary. There's a long history of successful co-existence between open source and proprietary software, and the same could be true for aerospace as well.

 

I didn't misread it.

If the point is coexistence between both proprietary and open source approaches to aerospace/space hardware, well, that's self evident as how reality works. You don't have to know too much about the early days of Jack Parson's crew (pre Aerojet) to judge the value of that 'open source' approach in the history of spaceflight.

As I said: room for both. I am happy Michelle has decided to champion that approach.

73
Chip W1YW

 

I don't think ANYTHING is trivial. So, no; you are not correct on this. I've run the tortuous path of innovation for over 50 years and know that nothing is easy. You presumed incorrectly.

I've read CANDIDE a dozen times. I understand the dysfunction of our species--as well as logic allows(which isn't much).

Again, Michelle and I disagree on the point of the value of 'proprietary', and 'differentiate (not on technology)'. I LIKE what she's doing. I just don't agree with all of her opinions, nor expect to.

So what?

There is no right and wrong here.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Please read what I said in context and stop taking things personally. I was referring specifically to the government's interpretation of its own export control regulations exempting information in the public domain (i.e., freely available). Anyone with a brain would think that this would obviously exempt a floppy disk (current technology in the 1990s!) containing the exact same information in a published textbook. But the government said no: the book was public domain and unregulated, but the floppy disk was a "defense article" requiring a State Department license to export. I had to pursue a lawsuit that bounced between the DC district and appellate courts for years until Clinton backed down in 2000 and rendered it moot.

Ie., don't assume government regulations are logical and reasonable just because they're written in something that appears to resemble English.

 

As for the larger question of the role of intellectual property in technology innovation, in ham radio and elsewhere, that is a much larger and mostly separate issue. I'm happy to have that conversation but it must be distinguished from the very specific issue we've been discussing: the advantageous treatment of open source technology under the US export control laws and regs. Michelle/ORI have argued, as have I, that one very specific advantage of open source development in aerospace (or at least the amateur satellite world) is the ability to use the so-called "public domain exception" in those export control regulations to avoid them. And she suggests that the aerospace industry may wish to avail itself of this approach in selected areas where the advantages to business may outweigh any perceived disadvantage of making something non-proprietary.

And ORI has now demonstrated, by a tedious and expensive legal process, that the government agrees with their reasoning. Again, this may seem like it should obviously be true, but when it comes to the government interpreting and following its own regulations, nothing is ever simple.

 

Your comments specifically quoted my post. If you wish to make a global comment, please don't quote a specific comment by an individual.

Again: kindly read.

Thanks.

 

Who is disagreeing on the government point-- the government defines proprietary as MORPHING to open source upon patent expiration, for example. It is self evident that the government has the CAPACITY to understand and recognize open source. It essentially legally forces technology to become open source.

Again,

I will be distinctively specific so you understand it properly:

Technology companies distinguish themselves--differentiate--by technology.

Not marketing.

Not sales.

Not contacts.

Not distribution.

ETC.

It is unrealistic to think that technology companies are inherently failing because they pursue proprietary innovation. That just is not factual. And that is what is quoted in the interview.

IF an 'open source' enterprise seeks to develop an 'open' hardware platform, that's fine. I can tell you that you should expect technology companies to start with such an open source platform as a 'base'--and then INNOVATE a better solution with proprietary technology. And yes, that will be an invention that builds upon the prior art.

Proprietary. AND likely NOT subject to an ITAR restriction.

This happens daily.

We now have almost 8 MILLION US patents that are OFF PATENT and thus essentially 'open platform'. Anyone and everyone can use those 8 MILLION+ 'open platforms'. And they do. They are in the public domain. Patentable improvements do not necessarily throw it back into an ITAR morass.

Technology companies will not go totally open source just to get around an ITAR technicality.

73
Chip W1YW

 

I made no such assumption, nor commented in any way that would allow that to be inferred. Again, if you reply to ME, you get a personal response. Not a robot here.

Try lecturing the inventor of the invisibility cloak on ITAR. I mean: really! Get real!

 

I'm sorry you seem more interested in taking offense than having a productive discussion. My apologies.

 

None needed. I am not offended.

You should just remember we were both at W2CXM...

73
Chip W1YW

 

Were we? Cool. I graduated in 1978. BSEE.

 

I know this will start a long discussion, but I simply have to disagree here. As a "technologist", i.e., an engineer who comes up with new ideas, I'm all too aware of how many companies with excellent technology ultimately fail, and how many companies with poor technology succeed through marketing, contacts. legal muscle (often by abusing the patent system), regulatory windfalls, or sheer dumb luck. Ideas are cheap; finding those who can use them, and making them work for them while overcoming obstacles both technical and legal (eg, from patent trolls), is the hard part. Again, I say this as someone who loves coming up with new ideas.

One of the main reasons I retired, and wished I'd retired sooner, was that work had long ceased to be fun. It consisted mostly of sitting in interminable meetings with patent attorneys and other engineers preparing defenses against some bogus patent being asserted against my company. We'd argue for hours over the exact meaning of a single phrase in a claim. To be fair, occasionally it was very gratifying to bust somebody's utterly idiotic patent, like the time a guy claimed the very concept of a Bluetooth earpiece. I came back with a photo of Uhura from Star Trek with her wireless earpiece and we never heard from him again. But that was the rare exception. Patent examiners know the system is utterly broken, so they basically approve everything and let the lawyers and courts sort it out at enormous time and expense. I can't tell you how demoralizing that is for an engineer like me. You know, the very people who the system is supposed to support.

You keep coming back to the patent system, while the "open source" concept has thus far been applied primarily to copyrighted software, and more recently to natural language works. Setting the thoroughly broken patent system off to the side for the moment, the fact is that the vast majority of proprietary software never passes into the public domain. Not only are copyright terms so ridiculously long that software is long obsolete far before the copyright expires, the authors are long dead and any source code is long lost. Their contribution to the art is lost unless someone goes to the considerable effort to reverse engineer it. Open source software development has been an enormous success; everything I write in my retirement is released under an open source license. And as I mentioned, ARDC, of which I am president, supports only open source developments. That point is non-negotiable.

 

Phil,

There is the world as it is, and the world we might want it to be.

ORI is a great idea and I am happy that Michelle is championing it. But the notion that proprietary innovation in aerospace should be dropped is not realistic. You have too many people like myself who see their path in the world through the patent system. It works. Could it work better? Sure!

If you have an open source hardware system--note HARDWARE-- then you cannot stop people like myself from building upon it. And securing proprietary 'disruptive' improvements. That's what inventors do. That doesn't mean we are greedy or any other unsavory adjective. It means we want the right to call the shots--at least temporarily--on how the innovation is used and who uses it. I don't need to be convinced that many, inventors lack sufficient ethical experience to make those decisions. But some of us old timers do.

PRC basically looks at all innovations as 'open source' and summarily rips them off. I know. It's happened to me. They stole my ability to guide. Open source without ethics. That, definitively, is DANGEROUS to EVERYONE.

Of course, under the proprietary US patent system, that open source abuse is countered--note the word-- with proprietary non-'open source' solutions.

If people want to develop open source hardware, then knock your socks off folks! Just be realistic that proprietary innovation will never, ever, morph into becoming a totally open source hardware environment. And you don't need to 'sell' open-source as an approach by trying to 'cancel culture' proprietary.

BTW, Yes, I was an ASTRO grad student, housed in Space Sci next to the Big Red Barn, a stone's throw from W2CXM. I was WA1JHQ. We have kibbitz over donuts.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Phil,

The patent system is a leveling savior for nerds like me who aren't business psychopaths with the right haircuts , who learn to lie with a smile. As for patent examiners and attorneys, well, at some point , some inventors become the teachers not the victims.

BTW patent examiners TURN DOWN almost all patents initially. So you have it wrong.

If you want to fight for invention you fight for the words. That is the inventor's job; the patent attorney and USPTO are the enablers. I dig it.

Coders fight for the code. Same idea.

Inventors almost never 'retire' by the way. It would be like a musician who stops playing.

73
Chip W1YW

 

And I think that is just fine. Truly. Any and all technology initiatives through Part 97 are positive. They prevent us from disappearing.

Since Part 97 proscribes such radio development 'for pecuniary interest' it certainly makes sense to 'seed' in an open source fashion. But being realistic, there will be many who choose to horizontally integrate those developments (whether seeded by open source funding or not) for commercial apps. There is nothing wrong with that: it pays the bills; it enables new careers; it opens up opportunities.

Again Phil, open source doesn't need to defend itself. Many tech fields start as open source--as I mentioned. You have the resources in ARDC to establish something truly positive.

Who can argue that?

73
Chip W1YW