RadioMaster caught infringing FrSky patent(s)?

[Landru]

There is a very recent report that RadioMaster has been forced to withdraw from sale several cloned FrSky receivers due to patent infringement. The receivers in question are known by RadioMaster as the R161 and the R168.

Details are scarce. However, it's clear that the RM Wesbite navigation was modified very recently to omit some links to those receivers. Yet information on the receivers can still be found on their site, and the site continues to offer for download exact copies of FrSky firmware.

If the report is true, it strikes me as positive development.

RadioMaster may be protected from similar issues related to cloned transmitters by virtue of the MPM. That Open Source project seems to provide a convenient arm's length method for companies to incorporate a competitor's reverse-engineered proprietary IP without fear of repercussions.

If you continue reading the RCG thread from the post linked above, you will find some further info.

 

[Konrad]

Caught might be a bit harsh. Accused might be better. Owen seems to think that as he was part of the management of the firm that developed the tech that he has access to the tech. That is NOT how intellectual property works. I can't for example move tech I developed at company "A" to my next job at company "B". If FrSky has issued a cease and desist letter I'm sure the management at Radiomaster is getting a bit uncomfortable!

Sale and Support are a bit different from each other. This is why Radiomaster hasn't stripped the support files for the product they may have illegally made. But they look to have stopped selling this junk. I think we are just seeing the pipe line drain of these RX's.

The MPM is fine as long as all the protocols and power levels have been tested for FCC compliance. And the there is a trail showing that the tech was reverse engineered and not just stolen. Henny has shown that with the certification this has not the not be the case. This will burn (in the USA) not only the manufacture but also those that sell the product. And to the letter of the law the user is also liable for operation equipment outside the certification parameters (off label).

Not going to go to RCGoofs, but I'm glad to see FrSky trying to protect their property. I want FrSky, heck any of my suppliers, to be around when I need support. This means they need to recover a reasonable return on their engineering investment. It looks like Owen's involvement in firms and product is almost a death sentence past the initial roll out. Far too often we see no support and are left holding faulty products (I'm thinking of servos and ESCs).

This ties in with my observation.

This is a good thing! Like you, I'm glad to see despicable management and their practice brought to light!

 

[Landru]

To pick up on one point, is it legally protected to reverse engineer a competitor's intellectual property and then bring it to market as a competing product? I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that such a practice may not be supportable in any jurisdiction that provides protection of IP.

And, I recall very clearly the proponents of the MPM justifying their reverse engineering on the basis of personal use. Clearly, the MPM has exceeded that usage in practice. I wonder if Open Source could be used to skirt IP protection in such a manner in general.

I think FrSky's move from OpenTx to EthOS reveals some practical consequences of such issues. An operating system that implicitly gives all competitors equal advantage from the R&D of one adopter would seem to be problematic.

P.S. I have no personal knowledge of that Owen character. Based on his business practices, I wouldn't trust him with the silverware.

 

[l Shems]

Lot of speculation here.

IP is a tricky subject. It is not all a simple as stated in the above posts.

But in this era of mass communications the not guilty until judged doesn't seem to be useful, as freedom of speech used in certain ways is much more damaging than even a conviction.

Have fun and just fly!

 

[Konrad]

To be clear what I post here is in no way intended to be a legal brief. It is based on my experience with patent law. I was issued the patent but had to sell it for a token $1 to the companies I worked for (paid me my salary) I then no longer held the patent and could not take it with me when I switched jobs.

The power of the information highway was that we the powerless consumer can add our voice to the marketing hype that has historically be controlled by the big corporation.
In this case Owen has left a trail of failed products in his wake. How much of this is his doing or bad luck is open to debate.

To your last point I want to fly. But I want the firms that actually contribute to my enjoyment of the hobby to succeed. That means I (we) need to call out sub standard practices that are trying to infringe upon the success of those that actually brought the tech to fruition.

As to reverse engineering, that is a very deep and gray area. Reverse engineering does not equate to copying. It can be rather difficult to prove that product is not a copy. The use of product and tech for "Personal use" clearly does not apply when the tech is being sold as a product. Now if I was to etch a PCB and solder up my own board, and then down load the software I had form my other radios then I may be inside the gray area. But as soon as I sell you the board it is not being used for personal use. Rather the tech is used for my personal gain!