Slashdot Mirror
Google, Dropbox, and Others Forge Patent "Arms Control Pact"
jfruh writes Patent trolling is a serious irritant and financial drain on many big tech companies — but those same companies can't guarantee that their own future management won't sell the patents they own to a 'non-practicing entity', especially in the case of sale or bankruptcy. That's why a number of tech giants, including Google and Dropbox, have formed the 'License or Transfer Network,' in which a patent will automatically be licensed to everyone else in the network in the event that it's sold to a third party.
A "patent defense pool" of tech giants will benefit, well, the tech giants, namely the incumbents.
The idea of patents was to foster innovation. Anything that tilts the tables against newcomers and favors the established players is working against that. It's not the established players that are dependent on the law in order to benefit from their inventions: they have all the means to exploit them themselves and benefit via first-to-market and the marketing power of their reputation.
This is a clear cut instance of collusion.
They should be forced to continue to defend their patents or to release the patents to everyone on the same terms.
Patent groups, from this shit to MPEG to BluRay to whatever, destroy innovation more than any individual patents do.
This protects against patent trolls, not newcomers
This would create an oligarchy, not a democracy.
membership is not exclusive. That is to say that any company can join. If membership is closed off to companies it is nothing more than another patent cabal.
Will this pact also prevent patent trolling by Google, Dropbox, and Others? Whoever others are but one would hope they include: Oracle? Microsoft? Samsung? Apple?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
They probably have invested a lot in lawyers for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the agreement is void in case of a sale due to bankruptcy since the value of the patents would be lower...
Has the editor actually understood the idea behind this?
How nice of them.
Top that!
This will definately improve the quality of patents, because everyone knows that patents are good quality, until they're sold to non-practicising entities, at which point they become bad quality, despite being exactly the same.
A patent cartel is a double edged sword that can smite trolls, competitors, or both. All depends of who's holding the blunt end.
Software patents are absurd and a form of double dipping since software is already protected by copyright they should indeed be scrapped. However just because patents are currently too powerful and have spread into areas where they don't belong does not mean the concept is fundamentally flawed.
The fundamental flaw is greed, the fact that 1000 individuals have obtained an income that is more than 3X that of 1,000,000,000 individuals combined is simply too much of a temptation to all but the strongest moral compass. OTOH, if everyone gets the same income who in their right mind would not just sit back and let "somebody else" worry about silly things such as a job?
The sweet spot lays somewhere in between, most economists put the ideal income ratio between richest and poorest at 10:1 and point to Norway's position at the top of almost every economic and social metric known to man as prima-facie evidence. Norway was smart enough to realise the North Sea oil boom would come to an end one day so they taxed the hell out of oil companies during the boom and invested it in both industrial and social infrastructure. Many economists now argue it is the social infrastructure that has seen the highest ROI.
Here in Australia we have done the opposite with our mining boom, there were some good reforms and we built lots of roads and railways that lead to giant holes in the middle of nowhere but mostly we squandered it on tax cuts and corporate welfare. In the meantime China has been buying our coal and iron ore and for quite some time has been building up their infrastructure at a phenomenal rate. Ironically they now have one of the highest inequity ratings of any nation. This is because of the discrepancy between the rural areas and the "economic zones". China is now in the process of building up the infrastructure in these rural areas but the pace has slowed because of the financial mess in the US and EU. They are now officially in deflation meaning production has overshot demand. Consequently our 25yr mining boom has come to a sudden halt and we have two fifths of fuck all to show for it. Sure our economy is still in much better shape than the EU and US, but I'm old enough to remember when life was good in both Norway and Argentina.
Disclaimer: I plead guilty to OT ranting, but I put it to the reader that a spliff and an end of the working week rant is far more humane than kicking the cat.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The largest giants ensures special privileges and treatments for themselves. However, if small companies have a high bar to entry, the economy will tank as a result of lack of innovation. Catch 22.
Captcha: networks
Why should such a contract be void in the case of bankruptcy? Yes, the patents are worth less this way. They are worth less precisely because they are encumbered by a contract so they cannot be sold to patent trolls. At least not some troll that wants to take on members of this patent club. If Dropbox dies as people find out how easy home servers are - then their patents will be sold. But they are encumbered by contracts with Google which is not dead. The patents are co-owned or perpetually licenced. These patents can only be used for protecting "business use" of them, not also for club members trolling each other.
... cue the antitrust suit.
It is kinda collusion. But not with a evil intent...
You know the US is in a sad state, if company's have to resort to this....
Not that I oppose this move, but it sounds like an antitrust violation to me. Perhaps its time to abolish antitrust law along with software patents?
"Google, Dropbox, and Others Forge Patent 'Arms Control Pact' " How dare they fake a patent in order to control who gets to make treaties concerning armaments!! I feel like any nation-state or people should have a right to make such agreements when ever they choose to, with whomever they wish. This is just another grab by greedy corporations. Or are they seriously announcing the presence in international warfarehttp://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/07/11/0138219/google-dropbox-and-others-forge-patent-arms-control-pact# and politics?
Not a lawyer but I believe that this is not enforceable in bankruptcy. A bankruptcy judge is going to void any agreement that limits the value of a patent. The judge is going to try to recoup as much money as possible for creditors.
Join em.
How is this not considered a trust, cartel or collusion? I mean, there was specifically a "United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co" Supreme Court case.
What word rhymes with buried alive?
Suppose you lease a car from Toyota. You pay for five years up front. You now have the right to drive that car for five years.
Toyota goes bankrupt. They own the car, subject to the l lease to you, which reduces it's value to the company. Do you think the bankruptcy court is going order all leased Toyota's to be repossessed? Of course not. Toyota's ownership interest in the car is subject to the lease.
Same here. As soon as the deal is signed, that creates a restriction on the ownership of the patents, lowering their value. The value is reduced today, when the restriction is added. Five years from now, a bankruptcy judge isn't reverse time and undo the contract. On the other hand, if the company tried to join the association AFTER they filed bankruptcy, the judge would have to approve the new restriction on the assets and they may well block that.
I believe you'd have to bring some of your own valuable and relevant patents to the table, just as in any other patent pool.
Since we live in a democracy and the vast majority of people will never be in that position the point is moot.
How many people are employed by companies deriving revenue from their patents?
Why should they be allowed to derive revenue from patents? They are just leaching off of other people's work.
We need to re-define patents. It should remain for hardware, but not software. Basically, we need to drop that method patent.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.