4 ms·

More patents in the service of open source

cLeEOGPw 13y ago
Those patent trolls are the same as computer hackers. They hack the legal system. But the government is too occupied with more important issues to fix this, rather complicated "bug". I wonder if it would be possible to design a legal system that would work similarly to an open-source project, where anyone could contribute, just not all contributions accepted, etc.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "I wonder if it would be possible to design a legal system that would work similarly to an open-source project, where anyone could contribute, just not all contributions accepted, etc." Strictly speaking, that's sort of the case. Nothing stops you from drafting a bill and handing it to your legislator's staff. Of course, the bar for being "accepted" is high, and probably depends on some things it shouldn't.
  - cLeEOGPw 13y ago
    What are the examples of those things oh which the law would depend? Now as you said it, i remembered a law that was supposedly written by public in Finland, but only now "understood" what it actually meant.
alxndr 13y ago
off-topic: how did Blogspot break the history back button so hard?
dnautics 13y ago
Does anyone know of a better mechanism besides patent pledges to allow for things to be open source and protected from predatory patenting? I've founded a nonprofit research entity (launching in 2014), and in our bylaws we are required to not patent things. Initially, I wanted to use the Statutory Invention Registration system to keep things libre and getting some level of protection without defensive patenting, but it turns out that as a result of the America Invents Act, the SIR has been eliminated.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  DPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_Patent_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_Patent_License) looked somewhat promising, but I'm still trying to figure out just how I feel about some of the details. Obviously, you'd have to change your bylaws to participate.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    yeah, changing the bylaws is certainly an option, but if possible, I don't want to do anything that could even remotely be intepreted as setting the precedent of waffling on the issue.
- jgamman 13y ago
  hi, I've just sent you a couple of papers I've recently written about designing patent commons from scratch rather than retro-bashing them together (context: NZ's Christchurch rebuild as the world's test bed for sensors in the built environment). get in touch if you're interested.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- cLeEOGPw 13y ago
  1. A system, almost the same as it is now, but the one patenting has to prove the patent office that the thing he wants to patent cannot be easily reproduced elsewhere without specific prerequisites, like exactly the types of research that was done by the patent "client". This rule would protect patent for things like drugs, where it is very expensive to find and test formula, but easy to copy, but would make it impossible to patent things like rounded corners or trivial algorithms or methods, things that are used the most by patent trolls. 2. Let everyone make anything that is patented, doesn't matter who is holding the patent, but the one using the patents should be aware he is using it. Then, if he, who used the patent, makes no money from it's use, he is allowed to use it without any limits (for example personal use, experiments, etc). If the patent user starts to make profit out of the product, which uses the patent, then there would be a special patent evaluation group, that would evaluate the significance of the patented thing, and the evaluated significance, combined with the profit the project is making and the set fraction that the patent holder gets, will be issued as a non-debatable compensation. Also the patent would only start to cost from a certain amount of profit bar and the price would rise non-linearly as the profit improves, so that lower profit products have to pay less, so that the price would not impede the growth, but only promote innovation by paying for it. The weak link would be the evaluation group - how to ensure it is not corrupt and evaluates righteously? Strict rules for evaluation could be set, but that would require some work to set up. 3. Combine those two.

Those patent trolls are the same as computer hackers. They hack the legal system. But the government is too occupied with more important issues to fix this, rather complicated "bug". I wonder if it would be possible to design a legal system that would work similarly to an open-source project, where anyone could contribute, just not all contributions accepted, etc.

dllthomas 13y ago
"I wonder if it would be possible to design a legal system that would work similarly to an open-source project, where anyone could contribute, just not all contributions accepted, etc." Strictly speaking, that's sort of the case. Nothing stops you from drafting a bill and handing it to your legislator's staff. Of course, the bar for being "accepted" is high, and probably depends on some things it shouldn't.
- cLeEOGPw 13y ago
  What are the examples of those things oh which the law would depend? Now as you said it, i remembered a law that was supposedly written by public in Finland, but only now "understood" what it actually meant.

alxndr 13y ago

off-topic: how did Blogspot break the history back button so hard?

dnautics 13y ago

Does anyone know of a better mechanism besides patent pledges to allow for things to be open source and protected from predatory patenting? I've founded a nonprofit research entity (launching in 2014), and in our bylaws we are required to not patent things. Initially, I wanted to use the Statutory Invention Registration system to keep things libre and getting some level of protection without defensive patenting, but it turns out that as a result of the America Invents Act, the SIR has been eliminated.

dllthomas 13y ago
DPL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_Patent_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_Patent_License) looked somewhat promising, but I'm still trying to figure out just how I feel about some of the details. Obviously, you'd have to change your bylaws to participate.
- dnautics 13y ago
  yeah, changing the bylaws is certainly an option, but if possible, I don't want to do anything that could even remotely be intepreted as setting the precedent of waffling on the issue.
jgamman 13y ago
hi, I've just sent you a couple of papers I've recently written about designing patent commons from scratch rather than retro-bashing them together (context: NZ's Christchurch rebuild as the world's test bed for sensors in the built environment). get in touch if you're interested.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cLeEOGPw 13y ago
1. A system, almost the same as it is now, but the one patenting has to prove the patent office that the thing he wants to patent cannot be easily reproduced elsewhere without specific prerequisites, like exactly the types of research that was done by the patent "client". This rule would protect patent for things like drugs, where it is very expensive to find and test formula, but easy to copy, but would make it impossible to patent things like rounded corners or trivial algorithms or methods, things that are used the most by patent trolls. 2. Let everyone make anything that is patented, doesn't matter who is holding the patent, but the one using the patents should be aware he is using it. Then, if he, who used the patent, makes no money from it's use, he is allowed to use it without any limits (for example personal use, experiments, etc). If the patent user starts to make profit out of the product, which uses the patent, then there would be a special patent evaluation group, that would evaluate the significance of the patented thing, and the evaluated significance, combined with the profit the project is making and the set fraction that the patent holder gets, will be issued as a non-debatable compensation. Also the patent would only start to cost from a certain amount of profit bar and the price would rise non-linearly as the profit improves, so that lower profit products have to pay less, so that the price would not impede the growth, but only promote innovation by paying for it. The weak link would be the evaluation group - how to ensure it is not corrupt and evaluates righteously? Strict rules for evaluation could be set, but that would require some work to set up. 3. Combine those two.