[Discuss] gaf at blu.org

[Hsuan-Yeh Chang]

> Thanks Hsuan-Yeh for posting this information. I have very mixed
> emotions on software patents. But one /of my pet peaves is the patent
> trolls (or companies whose only or primary business is patents).
> From a non-legal standpoint, it is my opinion that only individuals or
> companies who developed the product covered by the patent (or who have
> purchased the product and IP) should be able to enforce patents. In
> addition, there are many cases where companies have knowingly allowed
> their patents to be used before enforcing them.

In some sense, the existence of "patent troll" is premised on the fact that
different people have different talents.  Some people are good at inventing,
while some people are good at doing business.  Many times, good inventors
are NOT good businessmen.  So, it is really unfair to independent inventors,
if the law protects only those who BOTH invent and commercialize.  Inventors
should be allowed to enforce their patent rights even if they don't (or
simply can't) commercial the invention.  Meanwhile, patents are property
interests which are freely transferable.  As a result, if someone is really
good at playing with the system, one could technically own patents invented
by others and assert them to gain a profit without practicing the
invention.  That's where patent trolls are from, and I cannot really foresee
how people can get rid of patent trolls without harming independent
inventors who don't commercialize...

> I think that software patents are difficult because software is based on
> algorithms. How do you really define a software patent that is unique.
> Most software engineers are going to build their software using
> algorithms they learned from Knuth or Wirth.  Certainly a software
> author wants to protect his/her work. IMHO, there is just too much prior
> art and math in most software.

If I may, I would offer an alternative thinking here.  Patents and open
source are not really against each other.  Instead, open source can actually
benefit from owning patents.  Open source developers have already opened up
their source codes to the general public.  Even if there's still copyright
protection, once released under GPL (whichever version), the software
developers would retain virtually nothing.  If OSS developers can own some
patents for their "new" and "useful" software products, they could, on the
one hand, release the code under GPL, while on the other hand, license their
patent rights to the community without charge and license their patent
rights to proprietary software companies for a fee.  This would actually
generate income for open source developers, which could possibly motivate
ALL software developers to release their source code.

Again, I hope I am not leading you to think that I am convincing everyone
patent is good or bad.  It's your personal opinion that I respect.  I am
only offering some thoughts that, instead of playing ostrich, how open
source community might benefit from playing with the patent system.  I know
many people hate software patents.  But IF it's virtually impossible to get
rid of it within reasonable number of years, what better options do you have
other than living and playing with it?  Just a thought, share with you.

HYC