Troll-Proofed Defensive Patent License Launches with 23 Patents | Hacker News Reader

Troll-Proofed Defensive Patent License Launches with 23 Patents

eff.org

150 pointssandipc19 comments

What's with this effort being launched/announced at the same time as the LOT network thing, also on HN right now? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8725623

Are these competing efforts? Are they compatible with each other? Do the projects have any relationship, positive or negative?

IANAL, but here's the difference as I understand it:

> Under the LOT Agreement, every company that participates grants a portfolio-wide license to the other participants, but the license becomes effective ONLY when the participant transfers one or more patents to an entity other than another LOT Network participant, and ONLY for the patent(s) actually transferred.

LOT protects the patents from ever being used by trolls, but still allows LOT members to earn royalties from their patents from EVERYONE who uses it until the LOT license is triggered.

> With these patents under the DPL, anyone can license them royalty-free as long as they license their own patents (and commit to licensing future patents) under the same terms—even if they don't have any patents at all.

DPL gives you access to lots of patents for free, but you can only earn licensing fees from entities that have non-DPL licensed patents (or haven't committed to licensing future patents as DPL?).

I suspect that both license agreements can be be offered. DPL seems aimed at incentivizing free access to patents, especially for smaller companies. LOT seems targeted at preventing patents from ever being acquired by trolls. I am not clear on if DPL provides much future-proofing against sale to trolls.)

The DPL creators (Schultz and Urban) are listed as LOT advisers on http://www.lotnet.com/learn-more/leadership.cfm

I haven't looked at LOT in detail, but I suspect they're complementary approaches, and compatible in the sense that an organization could make both commitments.

Several months ago EFF published a guide to alternative patent license arrangements that mentions both, see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/hacking-patent-system-...

Google has a comparison table at http://www.google.com/patents/licensing/comparison/ that ought be updated to reflect DPL as actually used now.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

So DPL-licensed patents can never be used offensively in the future, but wouldn't they also greatly reduce the inventor's chances of ever making any money with their patent?

Large corporations will just use your patent for free, because their own patents are held by separate shell companies, so they are "part of the DPL network" by default.

And if you can't make any money with your patent, why make a patent? It's costly and complicated. Might as well just publicly disclose the invention (in a legally acceptable way), and the result will be the same as filing a patent under DPL.

> wouldn't they also greatly reduce the inventor's chances of ever making any money with their patent?

Maybe, maybe not. If the inventor wants to make money by implementing their invention, and also benefit from the ideas other people have and implement which are similar, then this would help them. If they also happen to believe that exerting most software patents are akin to extortion, and they have no interest in it, then no also.

> And if you can't make any money with your patent, why make a patent? It's costly and complicated. Might as well just publicly disclose the invention (in a legally acceptable way), and the result will be the same as filing a patent under DPL.

It's generally less costly to patent something than defend a patent suit based on prior art. For example, see the podcast patent fiasco. Plenty of prior art, millions of dollars to defend.

Link for those who (like me) didn't know about podcast patent: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/good-bad-and-ugly-adam...

I'm curious as to the enforceability of the all future patents clause. If I decide to license a patent under the DPL today, can I terminate my own rights as a licensee at some future date and avoid having to license my future patents in the same manner?

"If one ceases offering one’s patents under the DPL, previous licensees keep their DPLs royalty-free, but the leaving user may have her licenses converted from royalty-free to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND) at the discretion of the remaining licensors." -http://www.defensivepatentlicense.org/content/frequently-ask...

I'm worried about how this would affect someone's employability. Could this "poison" your work in the eye of a corporation's legal department?

Anything could "poison" your work in the eye of a corporation's legal department.

As an FYI, donations to the EFF are being matched right now: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/power-up-2014

So this is like the GPL for patents?

Looks like it's Free Invention, yeah. Soon we'll have people reminding us of the importance of terms like Free and Open Blueprint Innovation, which will confuse their therapists to no end.

Wait, when did Pixel Qi die?

The public announcement piece doesn't seem very viable long-term. A personal URL that could go away in a year or two when a domain registration lapses, amongst many other such scenarios. Why not have a central repo of declarees or a distributed block-chain listing them?

Not all software patents are born equal. IP is a hard problem that is very difficult to solve. The solution is not to just give up. These schemes, like the DPL, are fine as long as we avoid language like "bullies, trolls, or other leeches" which is inflammatory and counter productive. There is likely a role for patent pooling and charging as it rewards and incentives innovation - it just hasn't been fully figured out yet.

On the other hand: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

The broader landscape of IP is a more complex story, but when it comes to software patents specifically, they are clearly harming innovation far more than helping it. Software is well-protected enough by copyrights and trademarks.

Whatever the answer is, I'm sure it doesn't require ignoring or downplaying the impact of people who are abusing the system in ways that are completely unjustifiable and contrary to the public interest. Fixing the problems requires being able to talk honestly and openly about who and what the problems are, unconstrained by concerns for their feelings or PR efforts. Using bad-sounding labels for bad things shouldn't be discouraged.

> as long as we avoid language like "bullies, trolls, or other leeches" which is inflammatory and counter productive.

The only reason they are called trolls is that there was a libel suit around calling them patent terrorists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com