Slashdot Mirror
Defensive Software Patents for Open Source Projects?
jqh1 asks: "I'm the "inventor" of spamgourmet, a fairly un-obvious approach to spam prevention through auto-create/expire email addresses. I'm fully committed
to keeping the software free for all to use. Recently, I've seen other 'patent pending' disposable email address services that are not immediately forthcoming about their own processes. I don't have the time or resources to monitor and challenge patent applications, but I'm afraid that if I ignore them, I'll regret it. Should I seek patent protection for this open source software? If so, is there a way to do it without losing all semblance of an open source project?"
You could licence it freely and place a remark in
your licence that you waive your patent rights.
IANAL, nor am I an Englishman, but I've already
thought about this.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
On the other hand, you might just as well go all the way and write a license that includes instant termination upon litigation. This is usually frowned upon in open source circles, but it is commonly used in industry to defend against suits and promote cross-licensing.
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
Get a patent, and the worst you could just give anyone who wanted to use it a free license. Use the same theory as the GPL people do -- use a restrictive intellectual property rights power, in their case copyright, to prevent others from commercializing your work product. Their "copyleft" is merely copyright with unusual provisions, and if you look at their license you'll see the word copyright a dozen times. Perhaps a self-contained license for your patent could also be written and enforced -- ask for advice from the GPL project.
:)
I am not an IP lawyer, nor practicing law here, so absolutely do consult with a specialist. In the state, many lawyers participate in free or nominal fee 30-minute consultations. One hitch it that to actually obtain a patent may cost several hundred dollars (quid) for which you might solicit user donations. Set aside a little for enforcement; the GPL people have lawyers, too.
And, no, getting a patent is not crossing over to the dark side.
In the corporate world, patents are usually held and owned by the company for whom the actually inventor works, not the inventor themselves. For many freelance open source developers working without the umbrella of a corporate master, why not make that company the EFF or GNU for example? The admin of the patent, and any licensing fees (only chargeable for commercial products of course), goes to the EFF/GNU, maybe with a percentage to the original innovator.
If nothing else, the sheer irony of seeing the likes of Microsoft indirectly funding the development of Linux because some spotty geek happened to invent something first would make it all worth while. ;)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Make your algorithms public (in a way that can be proven - any lawyer tell the best way). Then you have prior art that can invalidate any patent that attempts to prevent this use. Much easier and cheaper than applying for a patent yourself. Just have to do it right - consult a patent lawyer anyway.
In Murphy We Turst
Like a lot of tech industries do, you could barter with patents.
Here's the deal,
Some OSS peeps form a Open Patent group,
The patents can be used freely for free(GPL) software or freely by a company if they submit patents to the group.
Everyone else has to pay to use the patents.
GPL is important here because a company could just ripoff some BSD software that implemented a patented algo.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
IANAL - but I work at an intellectual property publishing company (around a number of lawyers) so I've had to learn quite a bit about IP law and practice.
;) - but I think you'll find some useful information about this topic.
First off, we need to clarify what patents DO and DON'T DO for you.
The only thing a patent really does for you, is gives you the right to exclude others from using an invention. The way in which you can exclude them is by (civil) lawsuit (or threat of a lawsuit). There is NO reason to obtain a patent UNLESS you want to enforce it by excluding others from using an invention.
If all you want to do is ensure your/anybody's right to use an invention, you want to make sure future patents aren't granted to others - or failing that - that if they are, you have adequate proof that the invention was part of the public knowledge prior to the patent application which gives you the right to use it.
To do this, you DON'T need a patent yourself. All you need to do is "pollute the waters" by publishing prior art. In a perfect world, if a future application with similar technology crosses a patent examiner's desk - he'll find your prior art and reject the patent. Since prior art isn't always found, a patent may issue, but that prior art can be used in your defense when you are accused of infringement by others.
Publishing information for the express purpose of adding to the pool of 'prior art' is a process used by lots of companies, and is commonly known as 'technical disclosure' or 'defensive publication'.
At the risk of sounding like a corporate shill (bye bye karma) - you can read more information about how to do this on the website for the company I work for. (I wrote most of it, so I hate repeating myself here).
Whether you use the services (Prior Art Database) there or not doesn't matter to me - I don't get commission
It really sounds like technical disclosure is what you want. You may still get a cease and desist letter from somebody in the future, but you'll have evidence to back up your ability to use the invention yourself. That is all that having a patent would do for you as well. But unlike a patent, technical disclosures are much cheaper to produce, and should provide the protection you're looking for.