Slashdot Mirror
"Fair Trolls" To Fight Patents With Patents
FlorianMueller writes "Can a patent troll ever be fair? Yes. The primary concern over the upcoming Defensive Patent License — a GPL-like non-aggression pact for patents — is that it might be too defensive to have the desired impact. But actually the DPL could grow very big if one or more 'Fair Trolls' are brought to life and enforce patents against companies that don't support the DPL. The 'Fair Trolls' would commit to the DPL's terms, so they would have to leave other DPL backers alone. In exchange for this, the community would gladly feed them with patentable ideas (financial rewards for contributors included). Over time, staying outside the DPL alliance would become a costly choice for companies whose products might infringe patents. The bigger the DPL pool gets, the more valuable it becomes to its members. The more aggressive the Fair Trolls are, the better for the cause."
This assumes that those with vested interests in for-profit patent prosecution can't get the laws changed.
There are some great things about this planet, but I'm occasionally stunned by the filth and villainy of some of its residents.
That this is the plot to "Colossus: The Forbin Project"; but with lawyers instead of ICBMs...
...software patent. So there can't be a thing called a fair patent troll regarding software.
Maybe on non software patents.
All software patents are acts of fraud and public deception.
Software is not of patentable matter
The benefit would be limited to non-aggression between DPL members. By agreeing to the terms of the DPL, they effectively accede to a multilateral non-aggression pact.
...
What's needed is at least one (ideally more than one) entity that will assert patents from the DPL pool very aggressively and systematically against entities who don't support the DPL. By acceding to the DPL once they are attacked, the pressured parties could limit the problem to backroyalties (paying for past infringement of the patents in question) because once they make their own patents available under the DPL, they will have access to the patents in the pool.
How is this not a cartel agreement?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The big rewards lately have gone to Non-practicing entities. Those with no products. AKA Patent Trolls.
This provides no relief against someone that has no products.
Work bio at MMWD
and in the darkness bind them?
Sounds like they’re taking a bunch of small trolls and defeating them with a mega-troll, but it’s okay because this one’s a nice troll. It’s our troll.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
So imagine you're a small-time inventor. You come up with something cool, which unfortunately infringes on a few common-sense patents that the DPL has pre-emptively snatched up (to keep them out of the hands of the actually evil trolls).
Do you have to commit your patent to the DPL to keep them from suing you? And in return, they'll give you a cut of the profits? That sounds...well, it's starting to sound evil. Less evil, but still evil.
... is derp.
Seriously. What the PTO needs to do is throw out any patent on a software implementation on anything. MPEG-4 for example.
Viva la GNU!
"There were seven and a hundred Trolls,
They were both ugly and grim,
A visit they would Justice make,
Both eat and drink with him.
Out then spake the tiniest Troll,
No bigger than an emmet was he,
Hither is come an honest man,
And manage him will I surelie..."
I think the idea is that the people in the DPL are "good" and so if you asked them, and told them about your project, and you were not some large corporation trying to steal their work, they would grant you use of it.
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
why doesn't someone patent the business plan of, buying up patents and suing companies when they try to actually produce it? then put all the trolls out of business?
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
The trolls don't need to license squat thus they won't be bothered by this. It is somewhat rare for the larger companies to beat tiny people up with their massive patent portfolios and that is why it makes the news. Even the "evil" microsoft has a massive patent portfolio and it is infrequent when they beat people up. The FAT patent nonsense is sort of odd for them. I suspect their marketing department is more responsible for the lawsuits than their legal department.
But patent trolls are just evil lawyers who don't need to cross license patents seeing that the only patent they might genuinely try to use would be a patent on ruining lives through the courts.
Except for real killer inventions most large companies patent the crap out of what they do for defensive purposes more than anything else.
A patent troll love affair where the only ones protected are other patent trolls. It's like all the wolves of the world unite to divide and concur the rest of us sheep. Makes me sick. TheWitness
There is no such thing as a fair gun. So there can't be such a thing as a fair gunfight. So I'll just bring this knife.
Um, yeah, here in the real world, we have software patents. Yes, I agree they suck. You are preaching to the choir here at Slashdot on that one, champ. Having to shoot someone in the head sucks too, but if I've got to do it, I'd like a gun, thank you very much. The other guy has one. You are asking us to bring a knife to a gunfight here. But you aren't even going to this gunfight, so sit down, relax, and open up a frosty can of shut the hell up.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No matter how good the intentions may be here, I just can't see how this system could wind up as a force of good. You want some sort of benevolent dictator wielding the axe of patent infringement over the heads of everyone as some sort of deterrence system. That seems ripe for abuse. A good system has no head to cut off and no central authority to be corrupted.
Even at it's best, it's still sort of a colluding of the powers that be.
If such a thing got going strong, one or more detractors might accuse it of being an anti-competitive practice. I'd be curious how that would play out in court.
Ah, but who trolls the fair trolls?
And as it gets bigger, the administrators start looking to pay themselves a salary with a small fee. And then it gets bigger. And then it pretty much turns into all of the other patent pools like the BluRay pool.
I feel like I'm trapped in a Samuel Beckett play.
As long as everyone gets one.
Why might I want an automatic weapon? Hunting my ass, that argument should never have been raised.
You just never know when you might need to kill a non-trivial number of people in rapid succession.
That is neither a jest nor a threat. The express purpose of the second amendment to the constitution can be found in any civics book when reading about the actions of the British Red Coats as an occupying force. This is actually true of virtually all of the bill of rights. The citizenry is _supposed_ to have the right to be individually at _least_ as well armed as any member of the government.
As for guns, its supposed to function as the voting right of last resort. There are always more citizens, and if it comes to it they have the right to oust the constabulary or the government if it gets out of control.
The constitution was, after all, written by a bunch of Revolutionary Idealists who, by definition believed in the right of popular revolt.
But then again yea, if only patent trolls are allowed to have guns then only criminals will be patent trolls or something... 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Sounds too much like racketeering to me.
I think you meant to say:
"Sometimes it takes a Dick to fuck an Asshole"
Capped off with a quick "America-- Fuck Yeah!"
This is pretty much exactly what the protagonist, Manfred Macx, does as he contributes to the Free Infrastructure Foundation (or something similar). The foundation exists just to hoard patents and then go after anyone who tries to hamper real innovation.
Wouldn't be better to make patents non-transferable and therefore only those who actually created them could enforce the patents?
Manfred Max would be proud.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Fight fire with fire. Nice, how about fixing the patent system instead.
If they want to protect inventions from patent monopolization, they'll just publish the invention with a declaration that it's in the public domain. Which prevents anyone from patenting it.
The rest of this posturing is nonsense.
--
make install -not war
The alternative is paying taxes to a government formed by We The People, to defend the Constitution. Since the current regime refuses to do that, such a benevolent organization of patent trolls would be the equivalent of that branch of the government charged with enforcing sound, Constitutional intellectual property. The agreement and/or whatever relatively modest means required to fund the organization would be like a tax.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The way to get participation is to offer the heart and blood of the enemy to eat and drink in a lust of carnage. This "patent commune" sounds too "milk toast" for that. We all know the road to hell is paved with pure souls and funded by good intentions.
The big rewards lately have gone to Non-practicing entities. Those with no products. AKA Patent Trolls.
Which is why IP law - not just patent law but also copyright (though possibly not trademark) needs to be completely rethought. Bandaid solutions aren't going to work for a system that sees the original inventor or creator of a work not rewarded AND others seeking to create or invent thwarted. The current system is madness and guarantees stagnation and corruption. This is the opposite to the stated goal of such law for the whole of society and the only ones seeking to uphold it and ever increase draconian punishments for failing to comply are profiteers who belong on the B ark.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Business methods and software and patent trolls don't matter anymore.
At this point, ideas are patents, not how they work. That is why there are so many patent trolls. If you had to actually design a specific device, it become a lot harder to patent troll and it's not nearly as cost effective.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, it is evil.
The whole patent system is evil.
Until it can be abolished, any practical solution is going to involve 'getting your hands dirty' as the phrase goes.
The alternative, continuation of the status quo, is infinitely more evil.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Just set these people up with a huge portfolio of patents and they'll look after you. Yeah, right - would you like a bridge to go along with that?
This kind of deal is how trusts / cartels are born. It always sounds like a good idea at first, but once the combination is established it does what every other combination of this type has always done. Power corrupts, and the leaders of this cartel will have a large amount of power. They'll use it for their own benefit - not ours.
The patent system is meant to encourage innovation and knowledge sharing. Your system is designed as a means to socialize the patent system. By socializing the patent systems you eliminate the incentive to innovate and share knowledge. You might as well just eliminate patents.
And how long until the Patent Trolls buy off the Fair Trolls, especially when they are Major corporations withe billions of dollars to piss away on this?
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The way the US patent office works is that they check their data and any data that the submitter has provided. They aren't allowed to use search engines to find out if the thing had been done before since they would be leaking information out to the search engine provider. This means that the 1st software patent issued could have been for something very common if the patent office didn't have any reasonable documentation showing that it existed.
I think a solution to this problem (as it rolls into other countries) and the open source problem is a huge patent for "Processing information using a computer system" where everything anyone can think of is lumped in as a claim. Then the patent office will spend years knocking back every single claim and at the end of the process a patent may be issued with a few claims left but the patent office will then have lots of prior art on software patents. A good starting point would be to take The Art of Computer programming and add an useless extension to each algorithm in the books so as an example a claim could be done for "a method of sorting data about ice cream cones and other things by using a bubble sort"
Yeah, ultimately nobody on Earth can afford to stay outside the coalition, including every single corporation and every single one of the 6 billion people. Why can't we call the DPL public domain? And then you're automatically in? The DPL is just another superfluous contraption that serves no purpose, other than drain resources out of everyone with no apparent benefit in return, if every single person and corporation has to be part of it. Somebody has to fix the patent system. Its original intent was to remove secrecy and promote innovation, but these days it neither removes secrecy (have you read any recent patents, like post 1990? they don't "teach" like they used to back in 1890"), and retards innovation of others. We might as well be better off going back to full public domain of everything, and keep your secrets. Which you can anyway, patents are an incentive not to, but it seems they cause more harm to society than benefit anymore.
We are the BORG! You will be assimilated
I think the idea is that the people in the DPL are "good" and so if you asked them, and told them about your project, and you were not some large corporation trying to steal their work, they would grant you use of it.
No, no... the idea is that you contribute your patent(s) to the DPL pool, but you can still use it -- just not against anyone else who has contributed all their patents to the pool. It's a defense pact that doesn't prohibit offense against those outside the walls, which gives everyone outside a huge incentive to come inside, especially as more people join and the set of patents they can collectively assert against you if you don't join becomes larger and larger.
If you invent something that infringes upon a patent, then yes, you need to license the mechanism from the patent owner. This is true whether DPL or not. Patent law is not a moral issue, its a legal one.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. However is it less evil. Absent patent reform, (go ahead, hold your breath, I dare you...), I think it is a good thing to have less evil. Fuck!
Social Credit would solve everything...
If I don't own a patent but infringe a dozen (i.e. I am a free software developer) what happens ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Sir, are you retarded? Probably by judging this thread you're in...
It's not like we're voting here whether we should have software patents, WE ALREADY DO! What this venture is all about is trying to to abolish that very rotten system...
Some people just amaze me with their stupidity. Daily.
(Here it would be the parent poster and whoever modded it up.)
no?
The Communist's main argument against the "old "exploitative" capitalist system was that social "progress" cannot be halted. Those who stand in the way of progress are antirevolutionary instigators looking to bring back a social system of inequality, are looking to turn back the clock, to reverse history. In communism there is equality, guaranteed and enforced by the state: property accumulation is limited, nobody can own two homes, if you get a new one, must give up the old one. There is a fair rationing of resources, to eliminate hogging of resources by a few, making sure there is supply left for everyone to prosper. Such as how much gas you're allowed to buy a month, and to save gas on a national basis, on Sundays only the even or odd numbered license plate cars are allowed to drive, alternating each weekend. Also random brownouts for random amount of time was a daily "rationing", over-consumption limiting task.
Now there is two sides to every story, and exploitation, property(das kapital, fetishism) and wasteful overconsumption has its sides too, but saying "let's go back to a world where people can own two homes, two cars, and buy as much gas or potatoes as they want to" is like saying let's go back to a world with no patents. Software or otherwise. Where you're free to do whatever the fuck you want! We already do? It's too late? Can't turn back the clock, the natural progress of history? Oh where have I heard that argument before.
Property is a limit. No trespassing here. So is forced equality and non"free"market limits on consumption. No owning two houses or two of anything, per capita. Well, how is freedom maximized? Anything that says "you can't."
Here is my view on patent trolls: You can't do that thing because I invented the technology, and it cost me a lot of money to develop, and you could not have come up with the same thing without copying it from me. What? Give me a break, it's totally retarded, we've been doing this since mid 90's. But did you patent it. No, we just do it. Since when exactly. Since 1996. Well, we have the patent from 1995, so payup. Wait, wait, I made a mistake. We've been doing it from 1994, here is "written", documented proof. Oh, that changes everything. Really? Really?
To me the real worth of patents is free textbook "background of the invention", if it's even written in a half readable form, which, otherwise would be available from standard literature in a world without patents. "Let it be known to the world that I invented..." Shhhh, keep it secret. If I find out, or invent the same thing, I can do it too. The only thing we can't do is "lie", such as saying this item is made by Coca Cola, when it's an off brand Cola. What about the "secret" ingredients that Coca Cola puts in, and patents, and expire in 20 years. Yeah right. Let's give them 5000 years of protection so they tell us the secret. Are you crazy? Let them keep it secret, if anyone else comes up with similar stuff, so what? As long as you don't lie, and once a secret gets out it's public domain, so what? What's wrong with that kind of world? Which is how it used to be in the old days, when iron working was invented. Everybody learned. Or paper making, gunpowder, etc. No patents. Even with patents there are legally allowed "trade secrets", and in fact there are "trade secrets" not fully "disclosed" in patents and happen to be "conveniently" left out, or simply the text written incoherently and boringly enough not to be understood by anyone else than its writer. Policing such an abuse is impossible - only the "inventor" knows he's leaving something crucial out, but you don't know what he knows. How do you catch him or get him on it? Or that the quality of the text is "intentionally" confusing and complicated? You can't. It's a hopeless endeavor. That's why the patent office is backlogged. They can't do their job because it can't be done. I'm willing to say that living in a patent-free world of guilds and guarded trade secrets, and encryption, which is present and available anyway, is not s
In the United States of America, We The People, believe than all men are created equal, and hold this truth to be self evident.
In the Soviet Union, We The People, went a step further: we guaranteed and enforced it.
In the USA I know I'm worth less than Tiger or Lebron. Not worth as a human being, in the eyes of a law, but worth salary wise. They should get paid more for what they do. And be able to buy whatever they want on it. "Enforcing" economic equality is a difficult issue.
The balance between individualism and collective equality, in an economic sense, is encoded in the overall tax rate. At 80% tax rate, or even church donation rate, the community/committees decide the course of actions, and there is very little left for individual decision making. If the community sufficiently returns back this money to make its individuals prosper, then they may prosper, but they might easily ignore individuals and their wishes, and instead push their own personal agendas of grandiose egotistical greatness projects. At 2% tax rate on the other hand, individual people vote with their money on the course of economics, but very few grandiose things get ever built, such as a bridge, space station, or an effective military warplane carrier. With too many taxing entities, the intent might be to let people be free, and only ask for 1-2% each, such as local/state/federal/insurance1/insurance2/monthly fee1/monthly fee2/etc, but the overall effect is that we have many committees making many decisions, none of them well funded or powerful enough to make a real difference in building a grandiose thing, and the individual is completely stripped of economic power to vote on what's good or bad in economic production, and has to constantly opt for the cheapest, though economically costly and wasteful choices, wasteful because of improper balance of quality and cost. We're heading toward a point in the USA, where, lacking sufficient credit/bankruptcy statute of limitations expiring every 7 years, where people keep spending virtual money that doesn't really exist, or it's other people's money, so lacking such a source of money, people are forced into making bad economic decisions on having to purchase the lowest possibly quality in everything, including homes, cars, services, just to make ends meet.
With patents existing everybody in the world learns to bend over backwards to tie their shoe laces, just to circumvent patents of doing it the "normal" way, bending forward. So you have a lot of crazy things going on in society, all because you have a patent system. There is no monkey see, monkey do, it's no! Bad monkey! Stop imitating! That goes against the very fiber of human nature, humans being the apex, the greatest of great apes.
There is one reason that the NPE ("patent troll") business model has become increasingly popular: it works. It is also legal, and often helps protect independent inventors and SMEs from exploitation of their intellectual property by larger, more powerful entities. Notably, it is almost invariably such multinational corporations that complain most about NPEs -- because, before the latter became so prevalent, greedy corporations could more often infringe SMEs' IP with impunity. Although abuse of the system should be condemned, most so-called trolls do nothing worse than Wall Street traders, for instance. Like it or not, NPEs are here to stay. And that may be a good thing.
http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/patent-troll