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@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@14:   work, reading your work, or creating derivitave 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@15:   This work is copyrighted, but by recieving this work you gain the
rlm@15:   rights to distribute, copy, and make derivitave 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@15:   physical object ("regular" patents), an algorithm (software patent),
rlm@15:   of 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@15:   anyone else would be legally allowed to do so.  In practce, 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@15:   of presenting a coustomer with the last four digits of a credit card
rlm@15:   instead of displaying the entire numbner. 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@15:   Now, I choose a particurally silly patent, but the point is that
rlm@15:   patents can be a great force for the retardation of progress. Many
rlm@15:   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@15:   on that idea away for free/.
rlm@15: 
rlm@15:   ** Patents are treated as physical objects
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@15:   ** Patents are arranged in a dependency network
rlm@15:   
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: