Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Fair Trolls" To Fight Patents With Patents

Posted by kdawson on from the living-above-the-bridge dept.

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."

21 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Problem by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Problem by Tekfactory · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In what way could for-profit patent holders get the laws changed such that not-for-profit patent holders can't use the same laws to bully them back?

      Many of the for-profit patent holders that actually make things besides patents have a vested interest in keeping the system of offense and defense balanced.

      For example if patent offense is too powered some no-name entity or shell corporation (SCO) could bring huge suits against IBM and win. IBM wouldn't like that. If patent defense were too strong IBM couldn't use its huge arsenal of patents against its competitors.

      So there are some reasonably powerful entities out there that will do the right thing (not screw with patent law) out of self interest. IBM, Apple, Google, Microsoft will outspend any Patent Troll out there to maintain the current balance of terror.

    2. Re:Problem by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're basically missing the point.

      If IBM joined the coalition for Patent Defense, then it would only be able to sue companies suing IBM for patent infringement. Companies inside the coalition would be exempt from such a risk, and would lose their exemption the moment they sued a fellow member of the coalition.

      In the case you listed above, using the scenerio that SCO was not a member of the coalition, and IBM was, IBM would not only have its own patents, but all the other members would be able to add theirs to the dogpile of patents that would ensue.

      Now, if it were the other way around, and SCO was a member of the coalition while IBM wasn't and SCO sued IBM, then SCO would not be using its patents for defensive measures and would lose the protection being a part of the coalition, and possibly might be kicked out of the coalition as a result.

      The only people who would benefit (or at least remain neutral) would be the real patent trolls, the ones that hold patents with no intention of ever making a product, who would not be subject to counter lawsuits by IBM types.

      Of course, there is nothing we can do about patent trolls, except ridicule them and their owners every chance we get, or give the area served by District Court of East Texas back to Mexico.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. I'm fairly sure... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That this is the plot to "Colossus: The Forbin Project"; but with lawyers instead of ICBMs...

    1. Re:I'm fairly sure... by painandgreed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That this is the plot to "Colossus: The Forbin Project"; but with lawyers instead of ICBMs...

      Yes, but although Colossus took over the world and eliminated the US and USSR while nuking a few cities to do so, and then went on to make himself a benevolent dictator, in the end, it turned out that there really was an alien threat and Colossus was needed to protect not only against the self destructive tendencies of mankind, but them as well.

  3. There is no such thing as a fair.... by 3seas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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

    1. Re:There is no such thing as a fair.... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The existence of MPEG-LA demonstrates that under the current official interpretation of the law, software patents do exist.

      However, the existence of MPEG-LA does not demonstrate that software patents should exist under a reasonable interpretatoin of the law.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:There is no such thing as a fair.... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never suggested it did. I only meant to bring up the fact that the grandparent was living in a dream world.

  4. Okay... by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:Okay... by Microlith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ask the MPEG-LA and any other standards body.

    2. Re:Okay... by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

      you just said it.
      It is a cartel, but if we instead call it a general patent standards body then we should be all set. :-)

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  5. No effect on NPE's by micheas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  6. One ring to rule them all... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  7. In order to stay competitive, you have to join... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  8. Yeah..... by HeckRuler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  9. Waiting for Bilski by Mark+Gordon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I feel like I'm trapped in a Samuel Beckett play.

  10. Re:No such thing as a fair gun by 3seas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your rationality is in error. All you need to protect against patent trolls is to establish copyright date time.

    Prior art. Thats what I did, and even managed to get the patent office to publish it. see references on the link I gave. And understand what it is I did. One knife, uh err double edge sword, to end all software patent fighting.

    This is how I know the most powerful tool man has is denial. But denial doesn't change what is, only trys to ignore it. But denial won't last. Sooner or later both sides will give in and accept what is of that which is universally not patentable. Physical Phenomenon, Abstract ideas, Natural Law of which mathematical equations (which many want to argue against software patents with) are only a subset of these.

    Or perhaps we can create another IP concept called "mine" and this would mean we need to "demine" for protection against "mine"?

    See the foolishness of playing that game?

    If you play someone elses game but not understand that game doesn't fit your playing piece , you will lose, no matter what you do.

  11. Re:No such thing as a fair gun by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Um, yeah, see, the thing is: your method has not worked. Demonstrably has not worked. So I'm ready to try something new, you go on doing what hasn't worked. Or did I miss something, and software patents are no longer an issue?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  12. IP law needs to be rewritten by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  13. Re:No such thing as a fair gun by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Funny

    When the "real world" being referred to is within the European Union the patents are unenforcable

    That will come as a great surprise to the many defendants who have lost software patent suits in Europe,

  14. Re:that's like sucking dick with dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.)