rlm@12: #+title: Thoughts on Patents
rlm@12: #+author: Robert McIntyre
rlm@12: #+email: rlm@mit.edu
rlm@12: #+description: 
rlm@12: #+keywords: 
rlm@12: #+SETUPFILE: ../../aurellem/org/setup.org
rlm@12: #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org
rlm@12: 
rlm@12: 
rlm@13: (This is all based on my knowledge of American patent/copyright law.)
rlm@13: 
rlm@13: * Copyright is normally a negative force
rlm@13: 
rlm@13: 
rlm@13: 
rlm@13: * GPL uses copyright as a positive force
rlm@13: 
rlm@12: * Patents generally an inhibitive force.
rlm@12: 
rlm@13:   Patents are usually a negative force, one that allows you to stop
rlm@12:   other entities from using knowledge to their own advantage.
rlm@12: 
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@13:   develop, but do not particurally 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@13: * Positive Patents
rlm@13:   We can create patents that actively encourage openness by emulating
rlm@13:   the GPL. What it would take is a company that issues a more
rlm@13:   agressive 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@13:   The only exception is if the product is open (all code/methods of
rlm@13:   construction is made pubically available under an open 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@13:   system is harmful to innovation, and simply donate their patents to
rlm@13:   the cause.
rlm@13: 
rlm@13:   How could this get enough money to fight these legal battles?
rlm@13:   Perhaps there could be a possibility of settling for money and
rlm@13:   requiring the company to make their relevant patents merely neutral
rlm@13:   instead of positive. Then, the positive patent pledge could 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@13:   The only exception is if the product is open (all code/methods of
rlm@13:   construction is made pubically available under an open license), and
rlm@13:   the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
rlm@13:   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@13:   for them to contribute monetairly to this hypothetical company.
rlm@13: 
rlm@13: