rlm@12: #+title: Thoughts on Patents rlm@12: #+author: Robert McIntyre rlm@12: #+email: rlm@mit.edu rlm@19: #+description: A way to destroy the patent system. rlm@19: #+keywords: patent, copyright, GPL, freedom, copyleft, pledge rlm@12: #+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org rlm@12: #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org rlm@12: rlm@12: rlm@24: (This is all based on my knowledge of American patent/copyright law, rlm@24: though the situation should be similiar in other countries.) rlm@13: rlm@13: * Copyright is normally a negative force rlm@14: rlm@14: Copyright is something the you are automatically granted whenever rlm@14: you create a work in some permanent form; you don't have to request rlm@14: it or anything. It lets you prevent other people from copying your rlm@18: work, reading your work, or creating derivative works based on your rlm@14: work. rlm@13: rlm@15: Thus, copyright is what I call a "negative force". It is something rlm@15: that you use to prevent the flow of information; it lets you remove rlm@15: the abilities of other people to use "your" information. rlm@15: rlm@13: * GPL uses copyright as a positive force rlm@13: rlm@15: The genius of the GPL license is that it takes the negative force of rlm@15: copyright and turns it on its head. With the GPL, copyright can be rlm@15: used to enable freedom, and ensure peoples' rights to freely use rlm@15: your information. The GPL essentially reads: rlm@12: rlm@15: #+begin_quote rlm@18: This work is copyrighted, but by receiving this work you gain the rlm@18: rights to distribute, copy, and make derivative works based on this rlm@15: work, but only if you also license such work under this license. rlm@15: #+end_quote rlm@15: rlm@15: The requirement for using the GPL in derivative works makes the GPL rlm@15: "infectious", which means the GPL will "contaminate" all derivative rlm@15: works with itself. This ensures that even after many many rlm@15: alterations, the modified work will still respect its users' rlm@15: freedoms the same as the original work. rlm@15: rlm@15: * Patents, like copyright, are normally a negative force rlm@15: rlm@15: Patents, unlike copyright, are something you must request from the rlm@15: government. You are only supposed to be able to get a patent for a rlm@15: "novel" idea, which is an idea that wouldn't be obvious to someone rlm@15: working in the relevant field. A patent can be for the plans to a rlm@20: physical object ("regular" patent), an algorithm (software patent), rlm@27: or a way of doing something (process patent). Once you have a rlm@15: patent, it gives you the ability to stop anyone else from using your rlm@15: idea in any other invention. This is supposed to give you a rlm@15: temporary monopoly to help you make money off your invention before rlm@18: anyone else would be legally allowed to do so. In practice, many rlm@15: patents are given for ideas that are quite obvious to pretty much rlm@15: 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 rlm@18: of presenting a customer with the last four digits of a credit card rlm@18: instead of displaying the entire number. Amazon can sue any other rlm@15: company that displays only the last four digits of a credit card rlm@15: number and prevent them from using that method unless they pay rlm@15: Amazon a lot of money. Needless to say, there are many patents that rlm@15: are very silly. rlm@15: rlm@21: Now, I chose a particularly silly patent, but the point is that rlm@15: patents can be a great force for the retardation of progress. Many rlm@22: silly patents have been issued, and a patent lasts for 17 years! For rlm@15: almost any idea, there will be some patent that will cover your rlm@15: idea, and then the entity that owns that patent can prevent you from rlm@15: selling products based on that idea /or even giving products based rlm@16: on that idea away for free/. This can become a MAJOR problem for rlm@16: free software, since for basically any program, some part of that rlm@16: program will be covered by a patent, and it can become impossible to rlm@16: legally distribute that program as free software. This is why some rlm@16: GNU/Linux distributions don't come with an mp3 player. The mp3 rlm@29: algorithm is patented, and even if you write an free and open-source rlm@29: mp3 player, you will have problems distributing that player because rlm@29: of the mp3 patents. rlm@15: rlm@28: ** Patents are treated as property rlm@15: They can be sold, seized, etc. This is because the government wants rlm@15: new inventions to actually be made available to the public. The idea rlm@15: here is that if you are an inventor and you obtain a patent on a rlm@15: cool invention, but are unable/unwilling to develop an commercial rlm@15: product, you can sell that patent to some company and give them the rlm@15: exclusive rights to make that invention. rlm@15: rlm@16: Unfortunately, treating patents as physical objects has had an rlm@16: unintended side-effect: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll][patent trolls]]. These are companies that rlm@16: collect patents from companies that go out of business (and though rlm@16: other means) and then sue companies for patent violations. The do rlm@16: not produce any goods or services; their entire business model is rlm@16: suing people. Most patent lawsuits (more than 50%) are initiated by rlm@16: patent trolls. rlm@16: rlm@23: ** Patents are arranged in a dependency network rlm@17: Just because you have a patent on your invention doesn't mean you rlm@17: can actually distribute that invention. Normally, your invention rlm@17: will be affected by other patents, which themselves are affected by rlm@17: other patents. You can only distribute your invention if you rlm@18: negotiate with the owners of all these dependent patents. rlm@17: rlm@17: An example: If I own the patent for table tops and you own the rlm@17: patent for table legs, and you and I don't get along too well, then rlm@17: the world will be without tables for 17 years. rlm@16: rlm@12: * Google has created "neutral" patents via a pledge which attaches conditions to its patents. rlm@12: Google has a pledge at rlm@12: http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/ that says that for rlm@12: certain specified patents "we pledge not to sue any user, rlm@12: distributor or developer of open-source software on specified rlm@12: patents, unless first attacked." rlm@12: rlm@12: This is an interesting statement to me. With this pledge, Google has rlm@12: created "neutral" patents that allow open source software to rlm@18: develop, but do not particularly encourage it to develop. They have rlm@13: done this by attaching legally binding conditions on the enforcement rlm@13: of their patents via a pledge. rlm@12: rlm@28: * COMMENT Positive Patents rlm@29: We can create patents that actively enable freedom by emulating rlm@13: the GPL. What it would take is a company that issues a more rlm@18: aggressive pledge about its patents; Something along the lines of: rlm@13: rlm@13: #+begin_quote rlm@13: The Positive Patent Pledge, v0.1 rlm@12: rlm@13: "We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any rlm@13: product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any rlm@13: amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never rlm@13: see market, as is our right under patent law. rlm@13: rlm@29: The only exception is if the product is free (all code/methods of rlm@29: construction is made publicly available under a free license), and rlm@13: the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the rlm@13: product." rlm@13: #+end_quote rlm@13: rlm@13: This pledge, if taken by a company with enough patents, would slowly rlm@13: destroy the patent system by contaminating the entire patent network rlm@13: with patents that infect all dependent patents with this rlm@13: pledge. Companies that are considering patenting something will rlm@13: think twice, since they don't want to be responsible for costly rlm@13: legal battles with no monetary reward. They would be better off rlm@13: releasing their work to the public domain than patenting it. rlm@13: rlm@13: How might this hypothetical company (which is basically a noble rlm@13: patent trolling company) gain control of patents? They could use the rlm@13: normal patent troll methods of buying bulk patents from companies rlm@13: that are going out of business. However, they could also gather rlm@13: patents from individuals and companies who believe that the patent rlm@26: system is harmful to innovation -- they would simply donate their rlm@26: patents to the cause. rlm@13: rlm@25: How could this company get enough money to fight these legal rlm@25: battles? Perhaps there could be a possibility of settling for money rlm@25: and requiring the company to make their relevant patents merely rlm@25: neutral instead of positive. Then, the positive patent pledge could rlm@25: read: rlm@13: rlm@13: #+begin_quote rlm@13: The Positive Patent Pledge v0.2 rlm@13: rlm@13: "We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any rlm@13: product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any rlm@13: amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never rlm@13: see market, as is our right under patent law. rlm@13: rlm@29: The only exception is if the product is free (all code/methods of rlm@29: construction is made publicly available under a free license), and rlm@13: the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the rlm@26: product. The entity can take the Google 'neutral patent pledge' rlm@13: instead of this pledge if they are a 'special exception'. rlm@13: #+end_quote rlm@13: rlm@13: The only way for a company to become a special exception would be rlm@18: for them to contribute monetarily to this hypothetical company. rlm@28: rlm@28: rlm@29: * Source Listing rlm@29: #+html: rlm@29: - [[http://hg.bortreb.com ][source-repository]] rlm@29: rlm@28: rlm@28: * COMMENT rlm@28: use proscriptive/freedom enabling/disabling? rlm@28: rlm@28: explain a scenario of how this pledge would work. rlm@28: rlm@28: Describe that this is to destroy the patent system rlm@28: rlm@28: talk about selective enforcement-oppression rlm@28: rlm@28: how do we get the "big guys" rlm@30: rlm@30: "dependency network" might be too abstract