Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Mon, 10 May 2010 16:32:22 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100507/1649209343.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100507/1649209343.shtml Slashdot alerts us to a new effort to create a "Defensive Patent License" (DPL) as a defensive mechanism for open source developers. The idea is a bit more advanced than your every day patent pools (even the defensive ones). The basic framework is as follows:

• Members of the DPL would make a business decision that they are obtaining patents strictly for defensive purposes and not because they want to sell licenses or go on the offensive with lawsuits.
• Members of the DPL contribute all of their patents in their patent portfolio – they don’t pick and choose (and this is what differentiates it from other defensive patent pools).
• Members of the DPL allow all other members to use its patents without royalty and without fear of patent infringement lawsuits from other members as long as a member does not file offensive lawsuits or remove their patents from the DPL.
• Members may choose to leave the DPL but cannot revoke the royalty-free license from members who used it during the time the company was a member.
• Members that join after a company leaves would not have royalty-free access to a former member’s patent portfolio.
• The royalty-free cross licensing applies only to members of the DPL. Members are free to pursue royalties or lawsuits with companies outside the DPL.

It still seems like a pain that those who don't even believe in software patents have to go through this sort of trouble, but it's the nature of the system. Also, it does worry me that this creates more incentives for patents to be filed, when those patents could, potentially, end up in others' hands down the road. Apparently the folks putting this together are looking into whether or not the "membership could legally be applied to a patent that changed ownership from a bankruptcy." Of course, even so, the new owner could opt-out of the DPL, and while it couldn't revoke the license for other members, those patents could still be used pretty offensively. Either way, given the nature of the market today, adding a bit more protection for open source developers seems like it could be a good thing -- even though we haven't seen too many successful patent lawsuits against open source providers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> figthing-evil-with-evil http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100507/1649209343 Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:44:00 PST Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1031458365.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100302/1031458365.shtml impossible for any smartphone maker to survive the patent gantlet, as there are so many patents held by so many different parties, and they all seem to have recently started suing each other. The latest, sent in by a whole bunch of you (though Phillip was first) is that Apple is suing HTC, again both in the courts and using the ITC loophole. What's interesting here is that, despite Apple playing up the fact that it had over 200 patents on the iPhone, for the most part, it hadn't gone on the offensive with them. The recent patent lawsuits that Apple has been involved in have all been on the defensive side -- which we thought was a smart move for Apple. The fact that it's now going on the offensive on patents is unfortunate. It's usually a sign that a company is worried that it can't keep up with the competition.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> no-smartphones-at-all http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100302/1031458365