Hacker News Reader

Comment by fulafel | Hacker News Reader

> if you’re a hobbyist without access to some serious throwaway money to join the Thread Group, there is no way to use Thread legally

Is this really true? I assume the licensing legalese means patents, and patents don't apply to private tinkering unless there's commerce involved.

More generally aside from hobby scope - The absurdity of the monopolies granted by the current patent regime are made obvious by this arrangement: Big companies that have patent portfolios to countersue with can use OpenThread freely, small businesses and startups can't.

(Obviously it still sucks and is a major chilling effect)

View on HN

> patents don't apply to private tinkering unless there's commerce involved.

While you’re unlikely to be sued for something you do in your basement that has no broader commercial or cultural impact, it’s not impossible. There is no private use exemption to patents.

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/24148/can-i-build-so...

As always with laws this is very location specific. In germany there is a very clear clause about patents not applying to "Actions carried out in the private sphere for non-commercial purposes" (§11 PatG, own translation)

Also the patents in question are probably software patents which, in theory, are not granted in Europe.

"I'm in Europe so I don't have to care because software patents are not enforceable here" isn't the solution. Yes, patent law doesn't apply - but copyright law does, and they very much can take down content that references the spec just based on copyright law alone.

In a lot of european countries there's specific legislation allowing computing interop that overrides copyright. Eg https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/computer-...

(Also I'd think copyright in EU doesn't normally apply to implementing protocols as it's supposed to grant monopolies of creative expression? but IANAL)

This isn't 100% true, it's closer to 90% true.

There is a narrowly-tailored "research exemption" to patents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption

So "private tinkering" where you implement something patented in order to perform research is permitted, but not for one's own benefit, even privately. For the example we're discussing, implementing Thread on some IoT device in order to benchmark it in various ways is in-bounds, but you can't use that device to your own benefit, even privately in your own home.

Aye. And, as the sibling post points out, demonstrating that your benchmarking project qualifies for a Research Exemption could devolve into a lawyer-up situation.

Something surprising that a couple lawyers have drilled into me: you can be sued for anything, regardless of whether it's illegal or not. The lawsuit is the discovery & decision process by which the courts decide whether your personal circumstances make it illegal. If the law is blatantly on your side you can get the lawsuit thrown out, but you still have to defend yourself, which includes the expense of hiring a lawyer.

A corollary (and probably what the lawyers were getting at): not making yourself a target is more valuable than actually following the law. If you have money, keep it to yourself - some more unscrupulous actors will find some legal grey area you're operating in and sue you for it simply so they can force a settlement and get some of it. If you're doing something interesting (whether it's legal or not), keep it to yourself. If your interests are not aligned with someone else, gosh darnit, don't tell them or otherwise bring yourself to their attention. There is probably some lawsuit they can bring that would at least force an expensive court case and legal defense and make you want to settle to make it all go away.

And once you are a target anyway, follow the law scrupulously. This is why big corporations invest billions in legal & compliance departments.

Really only a thing in the USA due to the ridiculous American rule wrt. attorney fees.

Huh, TIL that there are jurisdictions like this. Not in my part of the world.

The quoted part above is about shipping products too, so I don't understand why they are using that as an example about not being able to play around with something or write blog posts. Here's the FAQ question

> What Would Prevent A Company From Shipping A Product Based On OpenThread Without Joining The Thread Group?

Answer, also quotes in the post:

> If developers choose not to join Thread Group and ship products using Thread technology, they are not conferred the IP rights required to practice and ship Thread technology, and may subject themselves to legal action, including but not limited to licensing fees.

It feels like even sharing my designs run a major risk of landing me in trouble. This sounds catastrophically hostile to open source in general.

If I ever want to make use of what I've built in any even remotely commercial setting, everything I've built feels liable to be infected & polluted with this copyright. I could rip out Threads & still not feel safe. I definitely can't sell a couple copies of this cool thing to other hobbyists on indiegogo.

The terms of use essentially outlaw community. Yes, maybe hobbyists can play with this, but they cannot form communities, they cannot share wisdom, they can't sell boards to each other, they can't even talk about the protocol or spec on detail.

So yeah, hobbyists arent expressly forbidden. But having any community of hobbyists seems fraught with difficulties. You can only hobbyist by yourself, discussing with no one.

Fuck Threads.

> hobbyists aren't expressly forbidden.

Also, I don't think it helps to use this word "hobbyists".

The entire world runs on free open source software written by unpaid volunteers who are poorly supported, isolated, and exploited by mega tech corporations that are parasitical on their work.

"hobbyists" sounds demeaning, It makes it sound like the great under-structure of common coding is somehow less-than-serious, somehow outside some commercial ecosystem rather than the very soil and food that sustains it.

This (self) perception needs to change. Big Tech would die tomorrow without the "hobbyists" it depends on.

Hang on that's a huge leap.

> Yes, maybe hobbyists can play with this, but they cannot form communities, they cannot share wisdom, they can't sell boards to each other, they can't even talk about the protocol or spec on detail.

But it just says you can't ship products and talking isn't shipping a product. The only part I see there is what if you sell things built on it.

Like sure it could be more open and sure having some small business exemption would be good but that's not the same as not being allowed to just make some stuff and talk about it.

Lawyers have little issue defining blogs like mine as "with commercial interest". I have a side-business, so lawyers could make the argument that I use my blog as advertising. I have a Ko-Fi link in the bottom of one specific site, that's a commercial interest, too.

Unless your blog is "I'm sharing holiday photos and nothing else", there's a lot of instances where it could be define as an outlet with commercial interests.

And, ultimately, I have no desire to spend any time and money on fighting even completely invalid claims. I'd rather spend my time watching cat videos on YouTube instead.

But their licensing doesn't care about commercial interests or lack of there of.

It only reserves right to charge you if you ship a product. And by product they most obviously mean a device and by ship they obviously mean sell (or gift, or possibly rent) to some customers.

All of this sounds like a thunderstorm in a glass of water by people who read too many software licenses.

This is not what the license says.

Yes. It's what it means.

It's baffling that some people here can read a sentence like

> Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications.

And somehow think that the restrictions only apply when you "ship", but not when you "implement" or "practice".

It's because people read more than one sentence and the very next one is:

"Failure to maintain active Thread Group membership while shipping Thread technology may result in legal action, including but not limited to licensing fees."

Which specifically mentions legal action in reaction to shipping only.

"Membership in Thread Group is necessary to ..." is just a statement of their wishes.

It's like "Sleeping is necessary for good health". It doesn't mean we'll sue you, if you don't sleep.

You're talking to the question, but the answer is even more conservative & scary than the question posed,

> are not conferred the IP rights required to practice and ship Thread technology,

Under this, it sounds like one isn't even allowed to dabble with Thread without $7.5k/year membership. You aren't allowed to practice is the words they respond with, which seems far more constraining than shipping.

Re-quoting the licensing agreement requires to download the spec,

> view, download, save, reproduce and use the Specification solely for your own internal purposes

> are not conferred the IP rights required to practice and ship Thread technology,

> Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications.

So yeah, actually it seems like even doing hobbyist things by yourself & telling no one is still far more than Thread group allows.

Fuck Thread! It's just so unbelievably shitty having the connected device technologies of our world be un-practiceable by mere mortals.

Not conferred the rights to practice and ship, but if there's something which doesn't require such rights (such are private home tinkering) then not having rights conferred isn't an issue.

Not saying that forgives this abysmal licensing regime of course.

and ship.

As a software engineer, our confidence that and means "both of these things" is high. I feel like you're taking quite a gamble doing that in law.

Anyone posting to a blog might also be regarded as shipping.

You're also focusing on one gotcha while ignoring the other terrifying clauses here. Are you still using the spec for internal purposes if you are talking about it?

IANAL but I strongly recommend any hobbyists or open source people steer the hell clear. These are terms for no engagement other than those willing to pay the anual fee.

What do you think they mean by this:

> Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications.

That if you are a corporation that wants to use this tech in your products (devices) you are advised to join Thread Group as soon as possible because you'll be required to do that when you ship stuff anyways. Possibly compelled by court if you resist.

They probably didn't expect interest from singular hobbyists, let alone hobbyists reading what they put out in the most uncharitable fashion. They have some clarifying to do if they decide that they care.

You are ignoring "practice", which in this context means any kind of operational use, including things like research (they also specify "implementation" separately, to explicitly cover development of products).

Practice here is as in "practice medicine", not "practice for tryouts".

"practice" here probably means use in your business of manufacturing devices

> "practice" here probably means use in your business of manufacturing devices

"probably"?

It's a legal document that lists the things you may not do as vaguely and as broad as possible, and lists suing you as the first recourse in their remediation.

It's unwise to err on the side of "allowed" instead of erring on the side of "disallowed".

It's unwise to err on either side. The license doesn't contain phrase "you do not blog about Thread or we'll sue you". Because that's not what they meant, because it's ridiculous.

There's only a singular threat in the license is here: "Failure to maintain active Thread Group membership while shipping Thread technology may result in legal action, including but not limited to licensing fees."

It specifically mentions shipping.

> It specifically mentions shipping.

It specifically mentions "specifications" too, and I did quote that bit in a previous comment that you replied to, so I know you read it.

How are we supposed to interpret "Membership in Thread Group is necessary to implement, practice, and ship Thread technology and Thread Group specifications."

You are specifically, in the license, forbidden from implementing, practicing or shipping the SPECIFICATIONS.

You literally cannot transfer any material or content that reveals the specifications.

Their intention for specifications are clearly stated in the earlier part of the document:

Thread Group [...] grants you [...] license [...] to view, download, save, reproduce and use the Specification solely for your own internal purposes

[...] you shall not: 1) loan, rent, lease, sublicense, sell, or permit others to use the Specification; 2) modify, adapt, translate, or otherwise change the Specification in any manner or create any derivative work of the Specification;

[...] copy or reproduce the Specification except for backup or archival purposes in connection with your internal use; or 4) remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Specification.

So yeah, you can't create derivative works from these specifications. Is a blog post about it a derivative work? Who knows. Probably not. Probably what they meant is you just can't create your own Threads 2.0 specification or create unauthorized translation of it (which although restrictive is reasonable because they just don't trust you to not mess things up). They clearly just want to remain the single source of truth for Thread specification on the net, to avoid ecosystem fragmentation and they intend to sustain themselves from licensing fees from commercial device manufacturers.

Even with all their conditions normal rights to citation, critique, parody probably apply.

Then don't use this or teach it. Don't build for it. Isolate it. Let it die. Cut off its supply. Make it irrelevant. Exclude it from connectivity options by default, out of caution. It seems pointless to complain that you can't have a bite of the poison fruit.

But also make sure others know. Actively warn and discourage other developers away from that technology. Make "Threads" regret their lack of openness.

The problem is that individuals cannot cut it out, because big tech firms use it pretty widely. It's basically a moat that allows companies to ship products using a shared standard, but makes it impossible for individual developers to (especially ones who aren't actively trying to start a business, but even then, $7500 a year is a lot for a garage-level startup for a technical standard).

Imagine how much less innovation there would be if it cost $7,500 a year to write anything that uses the Internet Protocol suite of standards.

I don't like to make predictions, but I think it will all eventually be swept away by forced open interoperability that is coming in strong from Europe. I don't feel any loss for independent developers who feel excluded from proprietary, locked "markets". It's saving them from wasting time. Let's check-in again on this situation in a couple of years. I'll bet "threads" is not even on the map. In the long game it always pays to go with the most free, open and interoperable standards, even if it limits opportunities in the short term.

> so I don't understand why they are using that as an example about not being able to play around with something or write blog posts.

It's seems pretty clear-cut to me:

Q: What Would Prevent A Company From Shipping A Product Based On OpenThread Without Joining The Thread Group?

A: (roughly) You will be sued

Now, what does the word "product" in "Shipping a product based on OpenThread" mean?

A product is any (or some combination of) the following:

1. A devkit

2. A book

3. A blog post

4. Any hardware that uses Thread

So, yeah, you can't write a tutorial for using Thread, or make a doorbell for your mum's house, or tell your friend how to read the protocol, or start up a /r/thread community to help each other use it.

Looks pretty damned locked down to me, without at least the FRAND loopholes.

There's no way that a book or blog post breaches any patents.

> There's no way that a book or blog post breaches any patents.

What does that have to do with anything? They don't say "we will sue you if you use our patents", they say "we will sue you if you use our specification".

Ah, I see now that they demand an agreement before access to it.

Then it might work.

Obviously only 1 and 4. Neither book or post uses tech. It can talk about tech, describe it, but never use it in any manner.

Mum's doorbell might be gray area as you can easily say that it's still your doorbel, you just chose to install it wherever you chose to install it.

Where is that definition of product from? Is that in their license agreement?

What is your definition of a product based on (from their license) "Thread technology and Thread Group specifications"?

Why would a book, or tutorial, or blog post be excluded from the clause "Thread technology and Thread Group specifications"?

Why would the license matter in cases where your actions aren't restricted by patent law and you don't need to accept any license and any limitations in it?

If you have a valid patent for e.g "A Device or Appparatus that does FooBar", you get certain exclusive rights for just that - that device is the "patented invention" where making/using/selling one is an infringement of the patent, but the description of that device (for example, the patent text itself) is not. A book about doing FooBar isn't a device that does FooBar, and neither is a tutorial or a blog post - the description of the patent is public, the knowledge in it is public, and you're legally allowed to redistribute that knowledge.

However, using the "patented invention" is an infringement[1], with no exceptions, so if the reader of that book or blog post would like to follow it and actually implement the patented method or follow the patented process in the privacy of their home, that would technically be a violation even if they are unlikely to be sued as the patent holder won't find out about it.

[1] 35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Obviously a device because when hardware peopl say product they don't mean book or youtube video.

These aren't "hardware people" writing the licenses, they're "legal people", i.e. lawyers.

It's way too legible to be written by lawyers. At most lawyer read this and said "sure, why not".

i find it curious they sell you a kit but the license doesn't allow usage - i'm curious how that would hold up in court....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com