Mercurial > thoughts
view org/patents.org @ 144:aceb83781139
s.
author | Robert McIntyre <rlm@mit.edu> |
---|---|
date | Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:05:13 -0800 |
parents | 8aa965b5ae9a |
children | 42b447a048aa |
line wrap: on
line source
1 #+title: Thoughts on Patents2 #+author: Robert McIntyre3 #+email: rlm@mit.edu4 #+description: A way to destroy the patent system.5 #+keywords: patent, copyright, GPL, freedom, copyleft, pledge6 #+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org7 #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org10 (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 force15 Copyright is something the you are automatically granted whenever16 you create a work in some permanent form; you don't have to request17 it or anything. It lets you prevent other people from copying your18 work, reading your work, or creating derivative works based on your19 work.21 Thus, copyright is what I call a "negative force". It is something22 that you use to prevent the flow of information; it lets you remove23 the abilities of other people to use "your" information.25 * GPL uses copyright as a positive force27 The genius of the GPL license is that it takes the negative force of28 copyright and turns it on its head. With the GPL, copyright can be29 used to enable freedom, and ensure peoples' rights to freely use30 your information. The GPL essentially reads:32 #+begin_quote33 This work is copyrighted, but by receiving this work you gain the34 rights to distribute, copy, and make derivative works based on this35 work, but only if you also license such work under this license.36 #+end_quote38 The requirement for using the GPL in derivative works makes the GPL39 "infectious", which means the GPL will "contaminate" all derivative40 works with itself. This ensures that even after many many41 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 force46 Patents, unlike copyright, are something you must request from the47 government. You are only supposed to be able to get a patent for a48 "novel" idea, which is an idea that wouldn't be obvious to someone49 working in the relevant field. A patent can be for the plans to a50 physical object ("regular" patent), an algorithm (software patent),51 or a way of doing something (process patent). Once you have a52 patent, it gives you the ability to stop anyone else from using your53 idea in any other invention. This is supposed to give you a54 temporary monopoly to help you make money off your invention before55 anyone else would be legally allowed to do so. In practice, many56 patents are given for ideas that are quite obvious to pretty much57 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 idea58 of presenting a customer with the last four digits of a credit card59 instead of displaying the entire number. Amazon can sue any other60 company that displays only the last four digits of a credit card61 number and prevent them from using that method unless they pay62 Amazon a lot of money. Needless to say, there are many patents that63 are very silly.65 Now, I chose a particularly silly patent, but the point is that66 patents can be a great force for the retardation of progress. Many67 silly patents have been issued, and a patent lasts for 17 years! For68 almost any idea, there will be some patent that will cover your69 idea, and then the entity that owns that patent can prevent you from70 selling products based on that idea /or even giving products based71 on that idea away for free/. This can become a MAJOR problem for72 free software, since for basically any program, some part of that73 program will be covered by a patent, and it can become impossible to74 legally distribute that program as free software. This is why some75 GNU/Linux distributions don't come with an mp3 player. The mp376 algorithm is patented, and even if you write an free and open-source77 mp3 player, you will have problems distributing that player because78 of the mp3 patents.80 ** Patents are treated as property81 They can be sold, seized, etc. This is because the government wants82 new inventions to actually be made available to the public. The idea83 here is that if you are an inventor and you obtain a patent on a84 cool invention, but are unable/unwilling to develop an commercial85 product, you can sell that patent to some company and give them the86 exclusive rights to make that invention.88 Unfortunately, treating patents as physical objects has had an89 unintended side-effect: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll][patent trolls]]. These are companies that90 collect patents from companies that go out of business (and though91 other means) and then sue companies for patent violations. They do92 not produce any goods or services; their entire business model is93 suing people. Most patent lawsuits (more than 50%) are initiated by94 patent trolls.96 ** Patents are arranged in a dependency network97 Just because you have a patent on your invention doesn't mean you98 can actually distribute that invention. Normally, your invention99 will be affected by other patents, which themselves are affected by100 other patents. You can only distribute your invention if you101 negotiate with the owners of all these dependent patents.103 An example: If I own the patent for table tops and you own the104 patent for table legs, and you and I don't get along too well, then105 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 at109 http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/ that says that for110 certain specified patents "we pledge not to sue any user,111 distributor or developer of open-source software on specified112 patents, unless first attacked."114 This is an interesting statement to me. With this pledge, Google has115 created "neutral" patents that allow open source software to116 develop, but do not particularly encourage it to develop. They have117 done this by attaching legally binding conditions on the enforcement118 of their patents via a pledge.120 * Positive Patents121 We can create patents that actively enable freedom by emulating122 the GPL. What it would take is a company that issues a more123 aggressive pledge about its patents; Something along the lines of:125 #+begin_quote126 The Positive Patent Pledge, v0.1127 "128 This pledge must go along with this patent -- if the patent is sold129 or transfered then the party must take this pledge as a condition of130 recieving this patent.132 We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any133 product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any134 amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never135 see market, as is our right under patent law.137 The only exception is if the product is free (all code/methods of138 construction is made publicly available under a free license), and139 the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the140 product."141 #+end_quote143 This pledge, if taken by a company with enough patents, would slowly144 destroy the patent system by contaminating the entire patent network145 with patents that infect all dependent patents with this146 pledge. Companies that are considering patenting something will147 think twice, since they don't want to be responsible for costly148 legal battles with no monetary reward. They would be better off149 releasing their work to the public domain than patenting it.151 How might this hypothetical company (which is basically a noble152 patent trolling company) gain control of patents? They could use the153 normal patent troll methods of buying bulk patents from companies154 that are going out of business. However, they could also gather155 patents from individuals and companies who believe that the patent156 system is harmful to innovation -- they would simply donate their157 patents to the cause.159 How could this company get enough money to fight these legal160 battles? Perhaps there could be a possibility of settling for money161 and requiring the company to make their relevant patents merely162 neutral instead of positive. Then, the positive patent pledge could163 read:165 #+begin_quote166 The Positive Patent Pledge v0.2168 This pledge must go along with this patent -- if the patent is sold169 or transfered then the party must take this pledge as a condition of170 recieving this patent.172 We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any173 product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any174 amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never175 see market, as is our right under patent law.177 The only exception is if the product is free (all code/methods of178 construction is made publicly available under a free license), and179 the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the180 product. The entity can take the Google 'neutral patent pledge'181 instead of this pledge if they are a 'special exception'.182 #+end_quote184 The only way for a company to become a special exception would be185 for them to contribute monetarily to this hypothetical company.188 * Source Listing189 #+html: <ul> <li> <a href="../org/patents.org">This org file</a> </li> </ul>190 - [[http://hg.bortreb.com ][source-repository]]193 * COMMENT194 use prescriptive/freedom enabling/disabling?196 explain a scenario of how this pledge would work.198 Describe that this is to destroy the patent system200 talk about selective enforcement-oppression202 how do we get the "big guys"204 "dependency network" might be too abstract