# HG changeset patch
# User Robert McIntyre <rlm@mit.edu>
# Date 1364829279 0
# Node ID a76185df00651525566b88e8f63093230441fc49
# Parent  c6ac92057526b89edb1388e7d9875157cb9da0ea
patent trolling.

diff -r c6ac92057526 -r a76185df0065 org/patents.org
--- a/org/patents.org	Mon Apr 01 14:38:27 2013 +0000
+++ b/org/patents.org	Mon Apr 01 15:14:39 2013 +0000
@@ -7,9 +7,17 @@
 #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org
 
 
+(This is all based on my knowledge of American patent/copyright law.)
+
+* Copyright is normally a negative force
+
+
+
+* GPL uses copyright as a positive force
+
 * Patents generally an inhibitive force.
 
-Patents are usually a negative force, one that allows you to stop
+  Patents are usually a negative force, one that allows you to stop
   other entities from using knowledge to their own advantage.
 
 * Google has created "neutral" patents via a pledge which attaches conditions to its patents.
@@ -21,6 +29,66 @@
 
   This is an interesting statement to me. With this pledge, Google has
   created "neutral" patents that allow open source software to
-  develop, but do not particurally encourage it to develop.
+  develop, but do not particurally encourage it to develop. They have
+  done this by attaching legally binding conditions on the enforcement
+  of their patents via a pledge.
 
+* Positive Patents
+  We can create patents that actively encourage openness by emulating
+  the GPL. What it would take is a company that issues a more
+  agressive pledge about its patents; Something along the lines of:
+  
+#+begin_quote
+  The Positive Patent Pledge, v0.1
 
+  "We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any
+  product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any
+  amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never
+  see market, as is our right under patent law. 
+
+  The only exception is if the product is open (all code/methods of
+  construction is made pubically available under an open license), and
+  the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
+  product."
+#+end_quote
+
+  This pledge, if taken by a company with enough patents, would slowly
+  destroy the patent system by contaminating the entire patent network
+  with patents that infect all dependent patents with this
+  pledge. Companies that are considering patenting something will
+  think twice, since they don't want to be responsible for costly
+  legal battles with no monetary reward. They would be better off
+  releasing their work to the public domain than patenting it.
+
+  How might this hypothetical company (which is basically a noble
+  patent trolling company) gain control of patents? They could use the
+  normal patent troll methods of buying bulk patents from companies
+  that are going out of business. However, they could also gather
+  patents from individuals and companies who believe that the patent
+  system is harmful to innovation, and simply donate their patents to
+  the cause.
+
+  How could this get enough money to fight these legal battles?
+  Perhaps there could be a possibility of settling for money and
+  requiring the company to make their relevant patents merely neutral
+  instead of positive. Then, the positive patent pledge could read:
+
+#+begin_quote
+  The Positive Patent Pledge v0.2
+
+  "We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any
+  product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any
+  amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never
+  see market, as is our right under patent law. 
+
+  The only exception is if the product is open (all code/methods of
+  construction is made pubically available under an open license), and
+  the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
+  product, the entity can take the Google 'neutral patent pledge'
+  instead of this pledge if they are a 'special exception'.
+#+end_quote
+  
+  The only way for a company to become a special exception would be
+  for them to contribute monetairly to this hypothetical company.
+
+