Freetronics vs Jaycar (IP & copyright issues)

[@rt]

Now I remember the YouTube series that was initially promoted by Dave, “The State of Electronics” (in Australia).
Featuring Dave of EEVBblog, Gary jonson (Jaycar), and Jon (Freetrhonics). How lovely!

I did post to their Facebook timeline, and thanks 3YE for posting it here as well.
I’m not going back until/unless Jon says in a future video that his is somehow resolved.
That’s actually very inconvenient.

Dave, I hope you do what you’re good at, and at least give it a mention.

[@rt]

It’s more than this. They have been clearing out the Freetronics stuff for some time,
and I even got an OLED on clearance for $40, initially it was a ridiculous price closer to $90, but this is retail after all.
I suppose they have every right to do that much since the other Duinotech stuff doesn’t appear to be copied off Freetronics.



I would like to know what display this is Jon if you look in here. I don’t want to talk to the intermediate controller someone has put there.

[Synthetase]

I'm not so sure... In the beginning of the video Jon says there is an Arduino COMPATIBLE board in his kit. This would imply he isn't selling original Arduinos either.

He's not complaining about the Arduino.

I think the point nctnico is trying to make is on one side Freetronics have a clone of the open source Arduino in their kit and on the other Freetronics are sad Jaycar cloned their kit with "open source hardware" printed on the box (which depending on how you interpret OSH includes documentation).

You got my point indeed. And after giving it some more thought the copyright issues seem hairy to me. After all releasing something into the public domain for anyone to do as they please kind off clashes with copyright which is there to prevent people from doing whatever they want which your intellectual property.

IMHO in the end it is the consumer who wins. Jaycar obviously has much deeper pockets and better connections to buy the kits in bulk at a lower price making the kits available/affordable to/for more people. Unfortunately Freetronics won't get any money or acknowledgement for their work which kind of sucks for them. But in a way it is like many great ideas: you need someone to turn them into a successfull commercial product otherwise an idea is worth less than the paper is has been written on.

The point you seem to be missing is that ORIGINAL, non-public domain work put into the comprehensive manual text and images is part of what made it a successful commercial product. They didn't just copy the idea, they copied the contents which is illegal. The hardware issue is moot, since it's already public domain.

[@rt]

It’s not just the display it’s got a micro on it to provide some dumbed down interface,
and SD card socket too, so it must have some software for the file system for that.

I’d rather just the display, but I wasn’t the market for this, it was just convenient.

[EEVblog]

I'm not so sure... In the beginning of the video Jon says there is an Arduino COMPATIBLE board in his kit. This would imply he isn't selling original Arduinos either.

He's not complaining about the Arduino.

I think the point nctnico is trying to make is on one side Freetronics have a clone of the open source Arduino in their kit and on the other Freetronics are sad Jaycar cloned their kit with "open source hardware" printed on the box (which depending on how you interpret OSH includes documentation).

You got my point indeed. And after giving it some more thought the copyright issues seem hairy to me.
After all releasing something into the public domain for anyone to do as they please kind off clashes with copyright which is there to prevent people from doing whatever they want which your intellectual property.

You have massively missed the point. Jon did not release the documentation into the public domain, he clearly retains right to it as mentioned in his terms page. That is blatant copyright infringement and punishable under law is Jon so chooses. Not to mention publishable under the douchebag social law.
Also, the box is clearly a Freetronics original design the rights of which Jon holds, nowhere does he say or imply that it can be copied or is released under license. Whether or not that's protectable or not under law is not the point, it's a douche move to copy it.
As for Jon cloning the Arduino, he did that fairly under the terms and conditions of the Arduino license and gave attribution.

[EEVblog]

To address this topic, is cloning a kit illegal? Maybe, maybe not.

Cloning the documentation and images is, without any doubt.

Finally, even copying the manual exactly may not breaching the laws since in some countries, copyright violation is punished as contract violation, where the contract is the license. Here in Jon's manual there is no license chapter, and hence the licensee is not bounded by a contract.

Copyright is automatic on all written and created works.

[@rt]

I shouldn’t have overlooked the comparison between eBay and a physical storefront there.
Of course it’s cheaper from China on eBay. So is everything.

[AmmoJammo]

I had a look through the book.... At best, its been retyped from the original... at worst, its copied and pasted with a few words changed..

If they had designed their own kit, made their own projects, and written their own book, we wouldn't even be having this conversation...

[jonovid]

Copyright is automatic on all written and created works.

only if you can afford to defend it with $  - justice & the law is for sale  as my Dad would Say "copyright & patents give your the right to sue for damages only IF you can afford to do so"

-as for Jaycar IP & copyright eventually the Chinese will eat their lunch . people will buy it 100% Chinese with no middle man
To stay business nowadays U must b nimble & agile. 

[AmmoJammo]

Sign the petition! because, why not?

https://www.change.org/p/jaycar-stop-jaycar-ripping-off-freetronics-remove-the-duinotech-experiments-kit-immediately

[rdpowers]

Not sure if these things ever have any effect, but change.org petition: https://www.change.org/p/jaycar-stop-jaycar-ripping-off-freetronics-remove-the-duinotech-experiments-kit-immediately

In any case, I'm happy to keep saying that they just lost few thousand very regular dollars a year in my business. Not sure what the general margins are, but I'd assume there's a few hundred dollars profit in there easily. Have fun trying to make that up in rip-off kits, morons.

[EEVblog]

Copyright is automatic on all written and created works.

only if you can afford to defend it with $

No, unlike Trademark law the copyright is automatic and is not lost just because you chose not to defend it.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

Yes it's a rotten thing to do.

So if I need anything of Jaycar quality I might as well get it cheaper from Aliexpress.

[Halcyon]

At the end of the day, seek legal advice. A lot of people will tell you to put it in the "too hard" basket, however I'd seek advice from the professionals. You'll find many law firms, including the big ones, will conduct an initial assessment of your case free of charge. A lot are also promoting their "no win, no fee" policies in order to remain competitive, if they have a good chance of winning (or reaching a settlement from the defendant), they'll run with it.

If you do consider legal action, be careful on what you discuss in public with respect to the case, defendant or the allegation.

Copyright is automatic on all written and created works.

Correct.

...but since the author had licensed everyone who has his kit without a contract, they can use it however they want, including creating copies.

No, they cannot. It doesn't give anyone unlimited rights to blatantly rip-off the creative works of another. Copyright can be implied which means you don't need to necessarily include the 'Copyright' disclaimer.

[EEVblog]

Copyright is automatic, but since the author had licensed everyone who has his kit without a contract, they can use it however they want, including creating copies.

Nope, it doesn't work like that.

[tautech]

Smelly as it is, don't they say imitation is the highest form of flattery ? 

[jonoxer]

I would like to know what display this is Jon if you look in here. I don’t want to talk to the intermediate controller someone has put there.

The bare panel is an NL128128C. We use an SSD1351 controller with it:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0045/8932/files/SSD1351-Revision_1.3.pdf?881

[jonoxer]

If they had designed their own kit, made their own projects, and written their own book, we wouldn't even be having this conversation...

Exactly! Or even if they'd approached this in an honorable way. I mean, I even make the guide available under a CC-BY-SA license, so it's not like I made it hard for them: they could have used it if they'd done it properly! But no, even giving them that option wasn't enough, they still chose to breach even the generous CC-BY-SA license and just put their own name on it. That's like willingly giving someone cash out of your wallet, and then they snatch the wallet out of your hand too.

[sleemanj]

Copyright is automatic, but since the author had licensed everyone who has his kit without a contract, they can use it however they want,

No, no not at all.  Copyright lies with the author.  The only way others have the right to copy is if the author has licensed them to do so, or assigned them the copyright.  The absence of a licence (contract) to permit the copy is the very thing that means that they can't copy it.  That covers the manual.

Now, I understand that Australia like NZ has the somewhat unusual category of "industrial" copyright which most countries don't have, it's possible that the box design, the foam design, and maybe even the kit makeup could fall under those industrial copyright provisions.

Industrial copyright is a unique and separate form of IP protection in New Zealand and Australia and important for manufactures and industrial designers to understand.  It can offer protection for innovative and original industrial designs in New Zealand or elsewhere, and includes protection for design drawings, moulds and prototypes.

But, realistically I doubt it's worth pursuing.

[mauroh]

I'm not so sure... In the beginning of the video Jon says there is an Arduino COMPATIBLE board in his kit. This would imply he isn't selling original Arduinos either.

He's not complaining about the Arduino.

I think the point nctnico is trying to make is on one side Freetronics have a clone of the open source Arduino in their kit and on the other Freetronics are sad Jaycar cloned their kit with "open source hardware" printed on the box (which depending on how you interpret OSH includes documentation).

You got my point indeed. And after giving it some more thought the copyright issues seem hairy to me.
After all releasing something into the public domain for anyone to do as they please kind off clashes with copyright which is there to prevent people from doing whatever they want which your intellectual property.

You have massively missed the point. Jon did not release the documentation into the public domain, he clearly retains right to it as mentioned in his terms page. That is blatant copyright infringement and punishable under law is Jon so chooses. Not to mention publishable under the douchebag social law.
Also, the box is clearly a Freetronics original design the rights of which Jon holds, nowhere does he say or imply that it can be copied or is released under license. Whether or not that's protectable or not under law is not the point, it's a douche move to copy it.
As for Jon cloning the Arduino, he did that fairly under the terms and conditions of the Arduino license and gave attribution.

Even though the whole point here is not about the Arduino COMPATIBLE board, it shows also the style of Jonathan that instead of just include in the kit a 3$ arduino clone he made his own variant (Eleven) with the micro USB and the prototype area...
This should be the correct behavior in the OPEN ELECTRONICS world, where you take whatever is free distributed and improve it not just copying it and applying your name.

I also agree that nowadays socials are much more powerful than lawyers

Mauro

[Cerebus]

Copyright is automatic on all written and created works.

Copyright is automatic, but since the author had licensed everyone who has his kit without a contract, they can use it however they want, including creating copies. Yes, the mechanism of copyright is stupid, but that's how lawyers get feed. Had he wrote a single line "This work is copyrighted and unauthorized copying is strictly prohibited unless otherwise allowed by law" he would be able to sue Jaycar. I suggest that he write these words in his future projects can them be protected by law.
Legal system in many countries are so complicated that finding and exploiting a bug is so easy, so if someone really wants to protect his IP, he better have some lawyers, one for each country he targets to sell his products to.

This idea that copyrights have to come with some kind of license to be effective is one you have, quite frankly, made up or acquired from someone who doesn't know what's actually what. Every country in the world that is of any significance is now a member of the Berne Convention. Under the Berne Convention certain classes of work, including written works, are protected by copyright ab initio (from creation) without the requirement for copyright registration or a copyright notice. The only thing you can do by including a license in a written work is to weaken the existing automatic copyright protection - e.g. a Creative Commons license.

[StuUK]

Someone on the Jaycar Facebook page pointed out that apparently Freetronics is supporting their clone 

And there is now a petition although not sure what effect that will have.... https://www.change.org/p/jaycar-stop-jaycar-ripping-off-freetronics-remove-the-duinotech-experiments-kit-immediately

[andtfoot]

Someone on the Jaycar Facebook page pointed out that apparently Freetronics is supporting their clone 

Except that is the actual Freetronics kit.

Real one (XC-4262):
https://www.jaycar.com.au/arduino-experimenters-kit/p/XC4262

Clone (XC-4287)
https://www.jaycar.com.au/duinotech-experiments-kit/p/XC4287

[StuUK]

Someone on the Jaycar Facebook page pointed out that apparently Freetronics is supporting their clone 

Except that is the actual Freetronics kit.

Real one (XC-4262):
https://www.jaycar.com.au/arduino-experimenters-kit/p/XC4262

Clone (XC-4287)
https://www.jaycar.com.au/duinotech-experiments-kit/p/XC4287

you're right, now I know what wilfred meant.... stupid me for not checking someone elses post!

[nctnico]

I'm not so sure... In the beginning of the video Jon says there is an Arduino COMPATIBLE board in his kit. This would imply he isn't selling original Arduinos either.

He's not complaining about the Arduino.

I think the point nctnico is trying to make is on one side Freetronics have a clone of the open source Arduino in their kit and on the other Freetronics are sad Jaycar cloned their kit with "open source hardware" printed on the box (which depending on how you interpret OSH includes documentation).

You got my point indeed. And after giving it some more thought the copyright issues seem hairy to me.
After all releasing something into the public domain for anyone to do as they please kind off clashes with copyright which is there to prevent people from doing whatever they want which your intellectual property.

Jon did not release the documentation into the public domain, he clearly retains right to it as mentioned in his terms page. That is blatant copyright infringement and punishable under law is Jon so chooses. Not to mention publishable under the douchebag social law.

In that case: why is Jon complaining in a video instead of calling his lawyer? I was under the impression the booklet which comes with the kit was also in the public domain. I just checked but the PDF for the booklet doesn't have any specific copyright notices on it also the T&C seem to be primarily about the website itself. In the 'about us' page it says following the Open Source principles of sharing our designs to let other people build on our work just as we've built on the work of others.