"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."

Comments

There is no such thing as a fair....

[3seas]

...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

Re:There is no such thing as a fair....

[Sir_Lewk]

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.

No effect on NPE's

[micheas]

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.

In order to stay competitive, you have to join...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Problem

[Tekfactory]

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.

Re:Okay...

[networkBoy]

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. :-)

Re:No such thing as a fair gun

[spun]

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?