8 ms·

Does there exist such a patent license with no security holes? I would imagine that it would read, “License will be revoked if you 1) Sue me for patent infringe

by yonran 12y ago

Does there exist such a patent license with no security holes? I would imagine that it would read, “License will be revoked if you 1) Sue me for patent infringement. 2) Sell a patent to a company that sues me for patent infringement (like Intellectual Ventures does). 3) Sponsor the development of a patent, and the owner of the patent sues me for patent infringement. 4) Contract with a patent pool that sues me for patent infringement. 5) Sue my partners or customers for patent infringement (like Apple vs. Google’s partners)...” and so on ad infinitum.

stcredzero 12y ago
One would also have clauses to ensure that the products/devices produced under license would not be designed for lock-in and be compatible with electric cars from other companies.
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  Interesting; almost like a "SA" license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ but for product compatibility.
bshanks 12y ago
http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/ http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/ (i'm not asserting it is perfect, just that it is an effort towards what you describe)
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  It's an interesting attempt. The problem I'm seeing is that it seems to do nothing about non-practicing entities, or to prevent the sort of thing Microsoft et al have done with Rockstar, essentially paying to license a bunch of questionable patents with the foreseeable effect of giving the non-practicing entity enough cash to create a menace for their competitors. What could be an interesting solution is to prevent people who want the protection of the mutual license from licensing patents from anyone else under any other terms. So if you want the protection of the license and a patent troll approaches you, your only choice is to either vanquish the troll or buy the patent outright and immunize everyone. That should mean no more Rockstars at least, and should make life more difficult for trolls because they couldn't license patents anymore, only sell them outright.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > Microsoft et al have done with Rockstar It is my understanding that Rockstar existed prior to Microsoft and others getting involved. They merely footed the bill.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      Pretty sure that's what I said. Is that supposed to absolve them?
      - pyre 12y ago
        Not really, but throwing in for something that already exists is slightly different than creating it in the first place.
      - throwawaykf05 12y ago
        Well, yes. Before they bought it up, Rockstar was a menace to everybody. Even before Rockstar, Nortel was calling firms up for licenses, and everyone knew what was coming when the patents went on the auction block. By making the winning bid, MS, Apple et al successfully managed to reduce their own liability. Now, in a fair competition, that should give them an advantage over others who failed to manage their risks. But the way everyone here behaves, people expect them to just let things lie, effectively footing the bill for the rest of the industry. How's that fair?
        pyre 12y ago
        > effectively footing the bill for the rest of the industry Well, they (at least many of them -- e.g. Microsoft, Apple, etc) also 'play the game' with their own patents, so it's not out of character for them to use patents offensively. By using their patents offensively, they are contributing to the situation where they are required to 'foot the bill' with their own liabilities, at least. If they adopted a less aggressive stance, and instead put the money they've spent on lawyers towards lobbying for patent reform, what they 'need' to do to limit their liability might be really different.
    - 12y ago
thegeomaster 12y ago
I doubt that Elon Musk would do something like this without heavy consultation with Tesla Motors' legal team.

by yonran 12y ago

stcredzero 12y ago

One would also have clauses to ensure that the products/devices produced under license would not be designed for lock-in and be compatible with electric cars from other companies.

seanp2k2 12y ago
Interesting; almost like a "SA" license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ but for product compatibility.

bshanks 12y ago

http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/ http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/ (i'm not asserting it is perfect, just that it is an effort towards what you describe)

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
It's an interesting attempt. The problem I'm seeing is that it seems to do nothing about non-practicing entities, or to prevent the sort of thing Microsoft et al have done with Rockstar, essentially paying to license a bunch of questionable patents with the foreseeable effect of giving the non-practicing entity enough cash to create a menace for their competitors. What could be an interesting solution is to prevent people who want the protection of the mutual license from licensing patents from anyone else under any other terms. So if you want the protection of the license and a patent troll approaches you, your only choice is to either vanquish the troll or buy the patent outright and immunize everyone. That should mean no more Rockstars at least, and should make life more difficult for trolls because they couldn't license patents anymore, only sell them outright.
- pyre 12y ago
  > Microsoft et al have done with Rockstar It is my understanding that Rockstar existed prior to Microsoft and others getting involved. They merely footed the bill.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    Pretty sure that's what I said. Is that supposed to absolve them?
    - pyre 12y ago
      Not really, but throwing in for something that already exists is slightly different than creating it in the first place.
    - throwawaykf05 12y ago
      Well, yes. Before they bought it up, Rockstar was a menace to everybody. Even before Rockstar, Nortel was calling firms up for licenses, and everyone knew what was coming when the patents went on the auction block. By making the winning bid, MS, Apple et al successfully managed to reduce their own liability. Now, in a fair competition, that should give them an advantage over others who failed to manage their risks. But the way everyone here behaves, people expect them to just let things lie, effectively footing the bill for the rest of the industry. How's that fair?
      - pyre 12y ago
        > effectively footing the bill for the rest of the industry Well, they (at least many of them -- e.g. Microsoft, Apple, etc) also 'play the game' with their own patents, so it's not out of character for them to use patents offensively. By using their patents offensively, they are contributing to the situation where they are required to 'foot the bill' with their own liabilities, at least. If they adopted a less aggressive stance, and instead put the money they've spent on lawyers towards lobbying for patent reform, what they 'need' to do to limit their liability might be really different.
  - 12y ago

thegeomaster 12y ago

I doubt that Elon Musk would do something like this without heavy consultation with Tesla Motors' legal team.