1.1 --- a/org/patents.org	Mon Apr 01 14:38:27 2013 +0000
     1.2 +++ b/org/patents.org	Mon Apr 01 15:14:39 2013 +0000
     1.3 @@ -7,9 +7,17 @@
     1.4  #+INCLUDE: ../../aurellem/org/level-0.org
     1.5  
     1.6  
     1.7 +(This is all based on my knowledge of American patent/copyright law.)
     1.8 +
     1.9 +* Copyright is normally a negative force
    1.10 +
    1.11 +
    1.12 +
    1.13 +* GPL uses copyright as a positive force
    1.14 +
    1.15  * Patents generally an inhibitive force.
    1.16  
    1.17 -Patents are usually a negative force, one that allows you to stop
    1.18 +  Patents are usually a negative force, one that allows you to stop
    1.19    other entities from using knowledge to their own advantage.
    1.20  
    1.21  * Google has created "neutral" patents via a pledge which attaches conditions to its patents.
    1.22 @@ -21,6 +29,66 @@
    1.23  
    1.24    This is an interesting statement to me. With this pledge, Google has
    1.25    created "neutral" patents that allow open source software to
    1.26 -  develop, but do not particurally encourage it to develop.
    1.27 +  develop, but do not particurally encourage it to develop. They have
    1.28 +  done this by attaching legally binding conditions on the enforcement
    1.29 +  of their patents via a pledge.
    1.30  
    1.31 +* Positive Patents
    1.32 +  We can create patents that actively encourage openness by emulating
    1.33 +  the GPL. What it would take is a company that issues a more
    1.34 +  agressive pledge about its patents; Something along the lines of:
    1.35 +  
    1.36 +#+begin_quote
    1.37 +  The Positive Patent Pledge, v0.1
    1.38  
    1.39 +  "We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any
    1.40 +  product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any
    1.41 +  amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never
    1.42 +  see market, as is our right under patent law. 
    1.43 +
    1.44 +  The only exception is if the product is open (all code/methods of
    1.45 +  construction is made pubically available under an open license), and
    1.46 +  the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
    1.47 +  product."
    1.48 +#+end_quote
    1.49 +
    1.50 +  This pledge, if taken by a company with enough patents, would slowly
    1.51 +  destroy the patent system by contaminating the entire patent network
    1.52 +  with patents that infect all dependent patents with this
    1.53 +  pledge. Companies that are considering patenting something will
    1.54 +  think twice, since they don't want to be responsible for costly
    1.55 +  legal battles with no monetary reward. They would be better off
    1.56 +  releasing their work to the public domain than patenting it.
    1.57 +
    1.58 +  How might this hypothetical company (which is basically a noble
    1.59 +  patent trolling company) gain control of patents? They could use the
    1.60 +  normal patent troll methods of buying bulk patents from companies
    1.61 +  that are going out of business. However, they could also gather
    1.62 +  patents from individuals and companies who believe that the patent
    1.63 +  system is harmful to innovation, and simply donate their patents to
    1.64 +  the cause.
    1.65 +
    1.66 +  How could this get enough money to fight these legal battles?
    1.67 +  Perhaps there could be a possibility of settling for money and
    1.68 +  requiring the company to make their relevant patents merely neutral
    1.69 +  instead of positive. Then, the positive patent pledge could read:
    1.70 +
    1.71 +#+begin_quote
    1.72 +  The Positive Patent Pledge v0.2
    1.73 +
    1.74 +  "We pledge to sue any entity that tries to sell/distribute any
    1.75 +  product that is covered by our patents. We will not settle for any
    1.76 +  amount of money but will instead ensure that the product will never
    1.77 +  see market, as is our right under patent law. 
    1.78 +
    1.79 +  The only exception is if the product is open (all code/methods of
    1.80 +  construction is made pubically available under an open license), and
    1.81 +  the entity makes this same pledge for any patents relating to the
    1.82 +  product, the entity can take the Google 'neutral patent pledge'
    1.83 +  instead of this pledge if they are a 'special exception'.
    1.84 +#+end_quote
    1.85 +  
    1.86 +  The only way for a company to become a special exception would be
    1.87 +  for them to contribute monetairly to this hypothetical company.
    1.88 +
    1.89 +