view org/patents.org @ 123:8ba1eed9411e

reorganize.
author rlm
date Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:31:19 -0400
parents 8aa965b5ae9a
children 42b447a048aa
line wrap: on
line source
1 #+title: Thoughts on Patents
2 #+author: Robert McIntyre
3 #+email: rlm@mit.edu
4 #+description: A way to destroy the patent system.
5 #+keywords: patent, copyright, GPL, freedom, copyleft, pledge
6 #+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org
7 #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org
10 (This is all based on my knowledge of American patent/copyright law,
11 though the situation should be similar in other countries.)
13 * Copyright is normally a negative force
15 Copyright is something the you are automatically granted whenever
16 you create a work in some permanent form; you don't have to request
17 it or anything. It lets you prevent other people from copying your
18 work, reading your work, or creating derivative works based on your
19 work.
21 Thus, copyright is what I call a "negative force". It is something
22 that you use to prevent the flow of information; it lets you remove
23 the abilities of other people to use "your" information.
25 * GPL uses copyright as a positive force
27 The genius of the GPL license is that it takes the negative force of
28 copyright and turns it on its head. With the GPL, copyright can be
29 used to enable freedom, and ensure peoples' rights to freely use
30 your information. The GPL essentially reads:
32 #+begin_quote
33 This work is copyrighted, but by receiving this work you gain the
34 rights to distribute, copy, and make derivative works based on this
35 work, but only if you also license such work under this license.
36 #+end_quote
38 The requirement for using the GPL in derivative works makes the GPL
39 "infectious", which means the GPL will "contaminate" all derivative
40 works with itself. This ensures that even after many many
41 alterations, the modified work will still respect its users'
42 freedoms the same as the original work.
44 * Patents, like copyright, are normally a negative force
46 Patents, unlike copyright, are something you must request from the
47 government. You are only supposed to be able to get a patent for a
48 "novel" idea, which is an idea that wouldn't be obvious to someone
49 working in the relevant field. A patent can be for the plans to a
50 physical object ("regular" patent), an algorithm (software patent),
51 or a way of doing something (process patent). Once you have a
52 patent, it gives you the ability to stop anyone else from using your
53 idea in any other invention. This is supposed to give you a
54 temporary monopoly to help you make money off your invention before
55 anyone else would be legally allowed to do so. In practice, many
56 patents are given for ideas that are quite obvious to pretty much
57 everyone. For example, Amazon has a patent (#[[http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F5715399][5,715,399]]) on the idea
58 of presenting a customer with the last four digits of a credit card
59 instead of displaying the entire number. Amazon can sue any other
60 company that displays only the last four digits of a credit card
61 number and prevent them from using that method unless they pay
62 Amazon a lot of money. Needless to say, there are many patents that
63 are very silly.
65 Now, I chose a particularly silly patent, but the point is that
66 patents can be a great force for the retardation of progress. Many
67 silly patents have been issued, and a patent lasts for 17 years! For
68 almost any idea, there will be some patent that will cover your
69 idea, and then the entity that owns that patent can prevent you from
70 selling products based on that idea /or even giving products based
71 on that idea away for free/. This can become a MAJOR problem for
72 free software, since for basically any program, some part of that
73 program will be covered by a patent, and it can become impossible to
74 legally distribute that program as free software. This is why some
75 GNU/Linux distributions don't come with an mp3 player. The mp3
76 algorithm is patented, and even if you write an free and open-source
77 mp3 player, you will have problems distributing that player because
78 of the mp3 patents.
80 ** Patents are treated as property
81 They can be sold, seized, etc. This is because the government wants
82 new inventions to actually be made available to the public. The idea
83 here is that if you are an inventor and you obtain a patent on a
84 cool invention, but are unable/unwilling to develop an commercial
85 product, you can sell that patent to some company and give them the
86 exclusive rights to make that invention.
88 Unfortunately, treating patents as physical objects has had an
89 unintended side-effect: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll][patent trolls]]. These are companies that
90 collect patents from companies that go out of business (and though
91 other means) and then sue companies for patent violations. They do
92 not produce any goods or services; their entire business model is
93 suing people. Most patent lawsuits (more than 50%) are initiated by
94 patent trolls.
96 ** Patents are arranged in a dependency network
97 Just because you have a patent on your invention doesn't mean you
98 can actually distribute that invention. Normally, your invention
99 will be affected by other patents, which themselves are affected by
100 other patents. You can only distribute your invention if you
101 negotiate with the owners of all these dependent patents.
103 An example: If I own the patent for table tops and you own the
104 patent for table legs, and you and I don't get along too well, then
105 the world will be without tables for 17 years.
107 * Google has created "neutral" patents via a pledge which attaches conditions to its patents.
108 Google has a pledge at
109 http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/ that says that for
110 certain specified patents "we pledge not to sue any user,
111 distributor or developer of open-source software on specified
112 patents, unless first attacked."
114 This is an interesting statement to me. With this pledge, Google has
115 created "neutral" patents that allow open source software to
116 develop, but do not particularly encourage it to develop. They have
117 done this by attaching legally binding conditions on the enforcement
118 of their patents via a pledge.
120 * Positive Patents
121 We can create patents that actively enable freedom by emulating
122 the GPL. What it would take is a company that issues a more
123 aggressive pledge about its patents; Something along the lines of:
125 #+begin_quote
126 The Positive Patent Pledge, v0.1
127 "
128 This pledge must go along with this patent -- if the patent is sold
129 or transfered then the party must take this pledge as a condition of
130 recieving this patent.
132 We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any
133 product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any
134 amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never
135 see market, as is our right under patent law.
137 The only exception is if the product is free (all code/methods of
138 construction is made publicly available under a free license), and
139 the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
140 product."
141 #+end_quote
143 This pledge, if taken by a company with enough patents, would slowly
144 destroy the patent system by contaminating the entire patent network
145 with patents that infect all dependent patents with this
146 pledge. Companies that are considering patenting something will
147 think twice, since they don't want to be responsible for costly
148 legal battles with no monetary reward. They would be better off
149 releasing their work to the public domain than patenting it.
151 How might this hypothetical company (which is basically a noble
152 patent trolling company) gain control of patents? They could use the
153 normal patent troll methods of buying bulk patents from companies
154 that are going out of business. However, they could also gather
155 patents from individuals and companies who believe that the patent
156 system is harmful to innovation -- they would simply donate their
157 patents to the cause.
159 How could this company get enough money to fight these legal
160 battles? Perhaps there could be a possibility of settling for money
161 and requiring the company to make their relevant patents merely
162 neutral instead of positive. Then, the positive patent pledge could
163 read:
165 #+begin_quote
166 The Positive Patent Pledge v0.2
168 This pledge must go along with this patent -- if the patent is sold
169 or transfered then the party must take this pledge as a condition of
170 recieving this patent.
172 We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any
173 product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any
174 amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never
175 see market, as is our right under patent law.
177 The only exception is if the product is free (all code/methods of
178 construction is made publicly available under a free license), and
179 the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
180 product. The entity can take the Google 'neutral patent pledge'
181 instead of this pledge if they are a 'special exception'.
182 #+end_quote
184 The only way for a company to become a special exception would be
185 for them to contribute monetarily to this hypothetical company.
188 * Source Listing
189 #+html: <ul> <li> <a href="../org/patents.org">This org file</a> </li> </ul>
190 - [[http://hg.bortreb.com ][source-repository]]
193 * COMMENT
194 use prescriptive/freedom enabling/disabling?
196 explain a scenario of how this pledge would work.
198 Describe that this is to destroy the patent system
200 talk about selective enforcement-oppression
202 how do we get the "big guys"
204 "dependency network" might be too abstract