

Troll-Proofed Defensive Patent License Launches with 23 Patents - sandipc
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/troll-proofed-defensive-patent-license-launches-23-patents-eff-cofounder

======
jrochkind1
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](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?

~~~
shkkmo
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.)

------
pierrec
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.

~~~
rando3826
> 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.

~~~
annnnd
Link for those who (like me) didn't know about podcast patent:
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/good-bad-and-ugly-
adam...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/good-bad-and-ugly-adam-
carollas-settlement-podcasting-troll)

------
function_seven
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?

~~~
mintplant
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?

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

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

------
orblivion
So this is like the GPL for patents?

~~~
tormeh
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.

------
mdonahoe
Wait, when did Pixel Qi die?

------
nowarninglabel
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?

------
blazespin
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.

~~~
lukifer
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.

