Patent Pool License?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| chalbersma Jul 30, 2010 11:03 PM EDT |
So I was in the Ballmer Peak and I started to think about ways to solve the software patent issue. What I'm thinking might work is a license that creates a patent pool between users. First I believe it would need to define the difference between regular/hardware patents and software patents. Then it says that a person or group/corporation that uses the software puts their IP in a royalty free patent pool. Among people that use the software or have used the software you cannot sue for patent infringement. I'm no lawyer but this may be able to solve the issue of patents especially if such a clause were integrated into the next version of the GPL. What do you guys think? |
| hkwint Jul 31, 2010 6:12 PM EDT |
DPL? http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/60939 http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/05/will-defensive-paten... http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/05/dpl-and-fair-troll-b... http://eupat.ffii.org/stidi/gacri/index.en.html Haven't read most of that, but I think it pretty much covers what you're suggesting. |
| chalbersma Aug 01, 2010 5:33 AM EDT |
Nah it's too defensive. It basically want to create a repo of patents plus a patent pool with no incentive to place your patent in the pool. This would be tied to a piece of software, and use of the software automagically places you in the patent pool. |
| hkwint Aug 01, 2010 9:28 AM EDT |
So if IBM is using Linux, all of IBM's patents and up in the pool, and they cannot sue any Linux user with their patents? I'm afraid that's a bit too far fetched. |
| chalbersma Aug 01, 2010 8:05 PM EDT |
Just their software patents but yes. And it does seem far fetched but so did a lot of things at one time or another. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2010 8:13 PM EDT |
> So if IBM is using Linux, all of IBM's patents and up in the pool, and they cannot sue any Linux user with their patents? I agree that's a non-starter. Though of course, no other Linux user could sue them either, which doesn't make it quite as improbable as it sounds. Even Microsoft uses Linux in their labs, to compare against their products. However, if you added a clause allowing the patents to be used defensively (that is, if the company in question is sued by someone else, they can counter-sue using those patents), then it might work. |
| chalbersma Aug 02, 2010 5:27 PM EDT |
Now there's an idea. |
| chalbersma Aug 02, 2010 5:57 PM EDT |
The idea is that if you have two companies A and B who use a pice of software from C. A, B, and C can use each other's software patents royalty free.
Jdixon, I'm not a lawyer but I think your idea of allowing A, B and C to use each other's patents defensively fits in well with the picture. I'm not sure if my ideas are getting across right but that should be the basic Idea of the Patent Pool License. |
| TxtEdMacs Aug 03, 2010 8:09 AM EDT |
[Serious] I hate to throw too great a chill into this idea, however, the most successful patent trolls are those with no business other than litigation. Hence, where is the defense in a pool ... a nice swim? Patent law needs modification, where the litigator can show their ideas are real and demonstrable within their own products. At one time U.S. patent law did not allow ideas. Furthermore, the entire explanation of how and why a device worked could be shown to be wrong. Nonetheless, the patent stands if the holders have put their ideas into practice. That is, if it worked they own the method to produce such actions in practice. Those sounded like a more rational set of conditions to me, but patent reform has perverted the whole concept of sharing, by giving a limited period monopoly into Intellectual Property enforced by disproportionate legal costs. True reform will require showing I.P. exists in practice. [/serious] End lecture. |
| jdixon Aug 03, 2010 8:55 AM EDT |
> I hate to throw too great a chill into this idea, however, the most successful patent trolls are those with no business other than litigation. Hence, where is the defense in a pool ... a nice swim? If the patents are allowed to be used defensively, then any one signing up for the pool could use any patent in the pool in a countersuit, not just the ones they've added. That might not stop true patent trolls, but the it would greatly increase the potential costs to them. |
| hkwint Aug 03, 2010 9:09 AM EDT |
Patent trolls is where free software could potentially shine: If some patent troll sues a closed source company, they pay, or they 'code around it'. When done, the patent troll can sue the next company. Because paying a license may be cheaper than coding around it, that's probably what most closed source companies will do. If some patent troll sues a free software project however, the free software project can code around it (as to evade the claims of the patent), and the whole world, including all closed source software companies - can use the 'bypass'. After they've done so, there's need for anybody to infringe on the claims of the patent troll anymore, and the patent of the 'troll' has become worthless. Using this mechanism, the more the trolls use their patents against FS, the more the value of their portfolio decreases. Therefore, Free Software will become the least attractive target. That's all in theory, though. |
| chalbersma Aug 04, 2010 3:38 PM EDT |
Maybe this is a pipe dream. |
You cannot post until you login.