Mercurial > thoughts

comparison 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
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
12:c6ac92057526 13:a76185df0065
5 #+keywords: 5 #+keywords:
6 #+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org 6 #+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org
7 #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org 7 #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org
8 8
9 9
10 (This is all based on my knowledge of American patent/copyright law.)
11
12 * Copyright is normally a negative force
13
14
15
16 * GPL uses copyright as a positive force
17
10 * Patents generally an inhibitive force. 18 * Patents generally an inhibitive force.
11 19
12 Patents are usually a negative force, one that allows you to stop 20 Patents are usually a negative force, one that allows you to stop
13 other entities from using knowledge to their own advantage. 21 other entities from using knowledge to their own advantage.
14 22
15 * Google has created "neutral" patents via a pledge which attaches conditions to its patents. 23 * Google has created "neutral" patents via a pledge which attaches conditions to its patents.
16 Google has a pledge at 24 Google has a pledge at
17 http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/ that says that for 25 http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/ that says that for
19 distributor or developer of open-source software on specified 27 distributor or developer of open-source software on specified
20 patents, unless first attacked." 28 patents, unless first attacked."
21 29
22 This is an interesting statement to me. With this pledge, Google has 30 This is an interesting statement to me. With this pledge, Google has
23 created "neutral" patents that allow open source software to 31 created "neutral" patents that allow open source software to
24 develop, but do not particurally encourage it to develop. 32 develop, but do not particurally encourage it to develop. They have
33 done this by attaching legally binding conditions on the enforcement
34 of their patents via a pledge.
35
36 * Positive Patents
37 We can create patents that actively encourage openness by emulating
38 the GPL. What it would take is a company that issues a more
39 agressive pledge about its patents; Something along the lines of:
40
41 #+begin_quote
42 The Positive Patent Pledge, v0.1
43
44 "We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any
45 product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any
46 amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never
47 see market, as is our right under patent law.
48
49 The only exception is if the product is open (all code/methods of
50 construction is made pubically available under an open license), and
51 the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
52 product."
53 #+end_quote
54
55 This pledge, if taken by a company with enough patents, would slowly
56 destroy the patent system by contaminating the entire patent network
57 with patents that infect all dependent patents with this
58 pledge. Companies that are considering patenting something will
59 think twice, since they don't want to be responsible for costly
60 legal battles with no monetary reward. They would be better off
61 releasing their work to the public domain than patenting it.
62
63 How might this hypothetical company (which is basically a noble
64 patent trolling company) gain control of patents? They could use the
65 normal patent troll methods of buying bulk patents from companies
66 that are going out of business. However, they could also gather
67 patents from individuals and companies who believe that the patent
68 system is harmful to innovation, and simply donate their patents to
69 the cause.
70
71 How could this get enough money to fight these legal battles?
72 Perhaps there could be a possibility of settling for money and
73 requiring the company to make their relevant patents merely neutral
74 instead of positive. Then, the positive patent pledge could read:
75
76 #+begin_quote
77 The Positive Patent Pledge v0.2
78
79 "We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any
80 product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any
81 amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never
82 see market, as is our right under patent law.
83
84 The only exception is if the product is open (all code/methods of
85 construction is made pubically available under an open license), and
86 the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
87 product, the entity can take the Google 'neutral patent pledge'
88 instead of this pledge if they are a 'special exception'.
89 #+end_quote
90
91 The only way for a company to become a special exception would be
92 for them to contribute monetairly to this hypothetical company.
25 93
26 94