[Discuss] The America Invents Act

[Hsuan-Yeh Chang]

1.  To me, trying to convince the Congress to get rid of software patents is no less crazier than my suggestions.

2.  Apparently, engineering schools should consider opening at some courses on patent and copyright laws for future engineers.  Filing a patent application doesn't mean you should ultimately pursue and get a patent.  A patent application can be file for preventive purposes.  Because all patent applications will become published after 18 months, any idea thus published will prevent late comers in getting a patent, regardless of whether the person filing it eventually get a patent or not.


3.  People have established Free Software Foundation, and many other non-profit organizations for the open source community.  Where do they find the money?

4.  If the open source community owns patents by itself, there will be more lawyers who are willing to represent the open source community and sue M$ under contingency fee basis.


5.  Patent rights are constrained by jurisdictional (geographical) limitations.  You can not grant a license for something you don't have.

HYC



________________________________
From: Derek Martin <invalid at pizzashack.org>
To: Hsuan-Yeh Chang <hsuanyeh at yahoo.com>
Cc: "discuss at blu.org" <discuss at blu.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Discuss] The America Invents Act

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 06:59:50AM -0700, Hsuan-Yeh Chang wrote:
> The best "priorart.org" for all industry is "patft.uspto.gov".  My
> view is that the open source community should file more patent
> applications.  

This is just crazy talk, because typically OSS engineers lack the
expertise to write them, lack the funds to pay patent lawyers to do it
for them, like the time and/or desire to actively defend them, and as
you yourself have pointed out, getting a patent approved is actually
not the easiest thing to do.  Many such OSS engineers are students,
who are already strapped for cash...  We're giving away what we
produce, so where do you suppose the funds to support this idea are
going to come from?  As a practical matter, what you're suggesting is
impossible.  RMS made this point in his video.

> As RMS pointed out in the video, patents can be used for
> cross-licensing.  If there is a non-profit organization who would
> hold patents for the open source community, this would be one way to
> obtain cross-licensing from those mega companies.  

If you watched the video, it certainly seems like you weren't paying
attention.  RMS explained why this generally isn't an option for OSS
developers.  First off you need to have your own portfolio of patents,
which isn't going to happen -- see above.  Then you have to deal with
the problem that cross-licensing with OSS software means you're giving
away your patent to the entire world.  Never going to happen...
Commercial patent holders have zero incentive to cross-license with
OSS patent holders... it's much, much eaier to litigate them into
bankruptcy and/or buy their patents for peanuts (or both).  I suggest
you watch the video again, RMS explains it more eloquently and in much
more detail than I could.

> would guard the little guys against the risk of patent suits.  What
> the open source needs is to collect more bargaining chips.  Simply
> denying the fact that software patents are still valid in the United
> States would not do us any good.

Yes, the point is to get lawmakers to change that.  It's the only
"practical" solution to the many problems which RMS outlined in the
video (practical in quotes because that's still not very practical,
given the SBA and its lobbyists and the millions of dollars they throw
at politicians).  It's hard, but it can be done.  Making software
patents actually work usefully with anything resembling our current
patent system can't, due to the very nature of software.  RMS
explained this too.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.