This article is really interesting. It made me think about something I was reading yesterday and how these legal principles might apply.
Emotiv is about to release their epoc brain-computer interface headset that uses EEG technology to attempt to divine intentions and emotions from thought alone. It has 14 electrodes and costs $299. You can read more about it at http://emotiv.com.
Anyway, the concept seems very interesting to me, and I was thinking it would be cool to use it for research or to play around with the SDK that it comes with. However, it turns out that the SDK only includes "interpreted" data from Emotiv's software, not the raw EEG data. For that, you have to pay $7500 for a license (or $2500 if you're a research institution), even though it sounds like it's the exact same device.
IANAL, but this article makes it sound like it would not be illegal to buy one and then circumvent whatever DRM scheme they've likely implemented to capture the raw data and use it however you want. In particular, these two lines about Lexmark's attempt to restrict 3rd party cartridges:
Because Lexmark's DRM only blocked access to the functions of the printer, not access to any copyrightable code, the court was unwilling to give its lockout behavior DMCA protection.
The judge concluded that "patent holders may not invoke patent law to enforce restrictions on the post-sale use of their patented product. After the first authorized sale to a purchaser who buys for use in the ordinary pursuits of life, a patent holder's patent rights have been exhausted... Because Lexmark's patent rights in its toner cartridges were exhausted by the authorized, unconditional sales of the cartridges to end users, Lexmark's attempt to impose single-use restrictions on the cartridges fails.
I'd love to hear what others think about the subject.
A friend of mine bought Emotiv SDK(the one with 16 electrodes) and mentioned that they are being extremely protective/restrictive on what you can do with the device (he also said it is very promising but the technology still needs a lot of work).
What I suspect is that the device, if it could reach real mass-production, would be very inexpensive to make, thus they are putting in all kind of pitfalls to prospective competitors.
Not that one can blame them for being so protective, but it could backfire in the long run, if a nimble competitor open sources most of the software and focuses on hardware or at the very least, makes developers job easier.
IANAL, but this article makes it sound like it would not be illegal to buy one and then circumvent whatever DRM scheme they've likely implemented to capture the raw data and use it however you want.
Based on the article, they will have a hard time! Emotiv's product is amazing, but at this stage what they letting through to developers is breadcrumbs. I am not sure - based on lurking in the forums for a while - if the EEG technology is controlling the outcome or is mostly the gyroscope with little support perhaps from EEG technology.
Emotiv is about to release their epoc brain-computer interface headset that uses EEG technology to attempt to divine intentions and emotions from thought alone. It has 14 electrodes and costs $299. You can read more about it at http://emotiv.com.
Anyway, the concept seems very interesting to me, and I was thinking it would be cool to use it for research or to play around with the SDK that it comes with. However, it turns out that the SDK only includes "interpreted" data from Emotiv's software, not the raw EEG data. For that, you have to pay $7500 for a license (or $2500 if you're a research institution), even though it sounds like it's the exact same device.
IANAL, but this article makes it sound like it would not be illegal to buy one and then circumvent whatever DRM scheme they've likely implemented to capture the raw data and use it however you want. In particular, these two lines about Lexmark's attempt to restrict 3rd party cartridges:
Because Lexmark's DRM only blocked access to the functions of the printer, not access to any copyrightable code, the court was unwilling to give its lockout behavior DMCA protection.
The judge concluded that "patent holders may not invoke patent law to enforce restrictions on the post-sale use of their patented product. After the first authorized sale to a purchaser who buys for use in the ordinary pursuits of life, a patent holder's patent rights have been exhausted... Because Lexmark's patent rights in its toner cartridges were exhausted by the authorized, unconditional sales of the cartridges to end users, Lexmark's attempt to impose single-use restrictions on the cartridges fails.
I'd love to hear what others think about the subject.