All Our Patent Are Belong To You

Post by sjwright » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 3:14 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #213

bshanks wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 p…

Post by citrik » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 3:39 AM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #249

mathattack wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The car companies are all adults. I think this signals, "Let's go down a road where we don't wind up suing each other like the internet companies" This doesn't diminish the impact of what they're doing, but there's a practical side.

You say this like the people working for and running "the internet companies" aren't adults. Being over an age threshold doesn't have any connection to acting as a benevolent member of society, and all companies, including Tesla and Comcast and Apple and Wawa and Chipotle, are in business to make profits.

Post by jholman » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 3:51 AM UTC

natural219 wrote: post #115

If you want to track the death of the cultural vision of Silicon Valley -- the belief that some people, at least, can rise above petty human squabbling and competition and are legitimately working to better humanity -- look no further than this thread. Every top comment is a skeptical one. "This is clearly a great PR move, but has no teeth." "How do you enforce this guarantee?" Etc. These are reasonable questions, bu…

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 3:58 AM UTC

sjwright wrote: post #251

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

> it seems to do nothing about non-practicing entities It doesn't do anything about non-practicing entities because it can't. There's no formulation of words that could cause a license to have any bearing on NPEs. Your potential wording would make the patent license completely unusable. Perhaps an alternative might be something along the lines of: You may not license a patent that has been involved in legal dispute.…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 13, 2014, 4:05 AM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #103

jonnathanson wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Good faith" is somewhat subjective, and usually it depends on context. Generally speaking, it means acting in an as-stated, forthright, non-deceptive manner. For example, if I agree to explore a partnership with you "in good faith," it means I am serious about the possibility of a partnership. I am not merely wasting your time for the purposes of distracting you, defrauding you, conducting market espionage, or sendi…

Bad faith would be GM patenting an obvious extension to a Tesla patent. What I think Musk is trying to do is poison the electric car patent pool with Milk and Honey. It isn't just Tesla patents that matter, but the whole landscape. Patents stifle the spread and pace of good idea distribution.