Mercurial > thoughts

annotate org/patents.org @ 13:a76185df0065

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
patent trolling.
author Robert McIntyre <rlm@mit.edu>
date Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:14:39 +0000
parents c6ac92057526
children e4ee3818a033
rev   line source
rlm@12 1 #+title: Thoughts on Patents
rlm@12 2 #+author: Robert McIntyre
rlm@12 3 #+email: rlm@mit.edu
rlm@12 4 #+description:
rlm@12 5 #+keywords:
rlm@12 6 #+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org
rlm@12 7 #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org
rlm@12 8
rlm@12 9
rlm@13 10 (This is all based on my knowledge of American patent/copyright law.)
rlm@13 11
rlm@13 12 * Copyright is normally a negative force
rlm@13 13
rlm@13 14
rlm@13 15
rlm@13 16 * GPL uses copyright as a positive force
rlm@13 17
rlm@12 18 * Patents generally an inhibitive force.
rlm@12 19
rlm@13 20 Patents are usually a negative force, one that allows you to stop
rlm@12 21 other entities from using knowledge to their own advantage.
rlm@12 22
rlm@12 23 * Google has created "neutral" patents via a pledge which attaches conditions to its patents.
rlm@12 24 Google has a pledge at
rlm@12 25 http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/ that says that for
rlm@12 26 certain specified patents "we pledge not to sue any user,
rlm@12 27 distributor or developer of open-source software on specified
rlm@12 28 patents, unless first attacked."
rlm@12 29
rlm@12 30 This is an interesting statement to me. With this pledge, Google has
rlm@12 31 created "neutral" patents that allow open source software to
rlm@13 32 develop, but do not particurally encourage it to develop. They have
rlm@13 33 done this by attaching legally binding conditions on the enforcement
rlm@13 34 of their patents via a pledge.
rlm@12 35
rlm@13 36 * Positive Patents
rlm@13 37 We can create patents that actively encourage openness by emulating
rlm@13 38 the GPL. What it would take is a company that issues a more
rlm@13 39 agressive pledge about its patents; Something along the lines of:
rlm@13 40
rlm@13 41 #+begin_quote
rlm@13 42 The Positive Patent Pledge, v0.1
rlm@12 43
rlm@13 44 "We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any
rlm@13 45 product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any
rlm@13 46 amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never
rlm@13 47 see market, as is our right under patent law.
rlm@13 48
rlm@13 49 The only exception is if the product is open (all code/methods of
rlm@13 50 construction is made pubically available under an open license), and
rlm@13 51 the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
rlm@13 52 product."
rlm@13 53 #+end_quote
rlm@13 54
rlm@13 55 This pledge, if taken by a company with enough patents, would slowly
rlm@13 56 destroy the patent system by contaminating the entire patent network
rlm@13 57 with patents that infect all dependent patents with this
rlm@13 58 pledge. Companies that are considering patenting something will
rlm@13 59 think twice, since they don't want to be responsible for costly
rlm@13 60 legal battles with no monetary reward. They would be better off
rlm@13 61 releasing their work to the public domain than patenting it.
rlm@13 62
rlm@13 63 How might this hypothetical company (which is basically a noble
rlm@13 64 patent trolling company) gain control of patents? They could use the
rlm@13 65 normal patent troll methods of buying bulk patents from companies
rlm@13 66 that are going out of business. However, they could also gather
rlm@13 67 patents from individuals and companies who believe that the patent
rlm@13 68 system is harmful to innovation, and simply donate their patents to
rlm@13 69 the cause.
rlm@13 70
rlm@13 71 How could this get enough money to fight these legal battles?
rlm@13 72 Perhaps there could be a possibility of settling for money and
rlm@13 73 requiring the company to make their relevant patents merely neutral
rlm@13 74 instead of positive. Then, the positive patent pledge could read:
rlm@13 75
rlm@13 76 #+begin_quote
rlm@13 77 The Positive Patent Pledge v0.2
rlm@13 78
rlm@13 79 "We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any
rlm@13 80 product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any
rlm@13 81 amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never
rlm@13 82 see market, as is our right under patent law.
rlm@13 83
rlm@13 84 The only exception is if the product is open (all code/methods of
rlm@13 85 construction is made pubically available under an open license), and
rlm@13 86 the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
rlm@13 87 product, the entity can take the Google 'neutral patent pledge'
rlm@13 88 instead of this pledge if they are a 'special exception'.
rlm@13 89 #+end_quote
rlm@13 90
rlm@13 91 The only way for a company to become a special exception would be
rlm@13 92 for them to contribute monetairly to this hypothetical company.
rlm@13 93
rlm@13 94