LinuxDefenders.org Launches To Fight Patent Trolls 73
eldavojohn writes "The Linux Defenders Network is a new organization sponsored by the Open Invention Network, the Software Freedom Law Center, and The Linux Foundation to help the community defend itself against patent trolls. Three models, or 'IP rights management tools,' are offered: Peer to Patent, Post-Issue Peer to Patent, and Defensive Publications. Mich Kabay's article in NetworkWorld cites an all-too-familiar incident from December, when General Patent Corp. announced it was working on behalf of Worlds.com to sue everyone — this probably could have been avoided with a little prior art help from the community. From the organization's about page: 'We encourage contributions from anyone that is interested in ensuring that innovation is not stifled by poor quality patents and is interested in assisting the patent office in its goal of improving the overall quality of patents.' Are these guys saviors arriving in the nick of time, or just another hopeless community effort to rein in the failing patent system?"
"hopeless community effort", I'm afraid (Score:5, Interesting)
A great initiative on paper, but I doubt it will lead to much. As someone who wrote a patent more than a decade ago and had the pleasure of being sued by my ex-employer (using my patents against me - nice), I can attest to the craziness of claim construction and other esoteric legal arguments.
Unlike coding as a group, which gave us Linux, creating meaningful and valid prior art is both harder and much less rewarding. That's why I doubt it can get enough contributors to make a difference.
Can't we just force the patent examiners to use Google search instead?
--
Fair Revenue Sharing for Bloggers: Pageviews or Equity? [fairsoftware.net]
Billions needed to purchase island. (Score:2, Interesting)
What we should do instead is raise money to buy an island and form a freedom-compliant government on it. The constitution of this island would state that everyone has total and complete freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to information, with absolutely, positively, no exceptions. This means yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is allowed. The constitution would further state that no other country's IP laws have any meaning on the island. This means it is legal to copy any information and nobody can say or do anything about it. The constitution would further state that no taxes of any kind or any amount may be levied for any reason, that the government may consist ONLY of elected people (no appointees or hires), that these people are allowed to work in their government role only 15 days per year, that they volunteer for the part and receive no compensation, and that any legislation they pass must first be approved by a 2/3rd majority of the entire island's voters in all of ten consecutive elections before it passes into law. There is no executive or judiciary. All disputes and other matters are settled by duels fought at a designated spot on the island's beach, with the only requirement that each party to the duel must bring three witnesses. The constitution would further state that no treaties or agreements may be signed with any country for any reason. The constitution would further state that the island would obtain an asteroid the size of Texas and prevent all outside threats or attacks from all other countries through a policy of deterrence: "You threaten us, we drop this asteroid the size of Texas and knock the whole planet out of orbit." All of your patent troll problems are solved by moving to this island. Now if only we could figure out where to get the billion or two that it would cost to buy such a place.
Re:Hurray? (Score:2, Interesting)
Did they ever come through with that actually?
They were going on about it, then asked to prove it and did they?
Or did they just use their usual FUD spreading to try scare the companies considering it?
Re:Hurray? (Score:1, Interesting)
As of late I think it is things like the Apple multi touch patents and all the other shit they keep patenting is what needs to be fought against.
Re:Because they don't (Score:1, Interesting)
Well it's not even about USPTO incompetence, it's a broken game to start with: if the USPTO don't have expertise in EVERYTHING then they can't distinguish significantly unique inventions. Asking the USPTO to be experts at EVERYTHING is ridiculous so the idea of the patent office as it is is ridiculous. Right now they're handing out monopolies over things they don't understand and effectively outlawing competition in some areas.
Add to this the USPTO have a big ego and they don't like admitting that they were wrong (the emperor is wearing clothes, damnit!). For years Amazon had their one-click patent and the patent office didn't fix it. That it took a New Zealander so long to destroy Amazon patent shows that they don't like going back on their decisions.
Putting the patents application process online is a good start (I think the USPTO do this). At least that way the large corporates can fight it out like a court-room battle, with the patent examiner as the judge. But even then the USPTO don't have the time to judge applications because it's not considered a court battle, it's considered revenue generation and it's not the governments problem when it goes wrong. Their only motivation is bad publicity and government intervention but they've got a monopoly so what's the alternative? They get to do a crap job and that's ok.
Worse still, there's a lot of lobbying money in maintaining patents now and little money for reform or limitations. We're going to be stuck with it for a long time.
Re:"hopeless community effort", I'm afraid (Score:4, Interesting)
Or is it choosing to use a Cao.SiO2 slag with blown air to purify it? Surely an idea as specific as the last one is worthy of a patent?
No, not in itself. Sure, it's a good idea, and you're right to be proud of it.
However, just because you thought of it first doesn't in itself mean you should be the only one who can have that thought. Now, if you're the first one to think it and you also use it, that's another thing entirely.
Suppose a patent troll had that thought first. They're not doing anything with it, just sitting on the patent. Now you are verboten to have a good idea, for no good reason. Would you still say the same?