Re: [Patents] pooling patents, version 2

[Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

El Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 01:45:05AM +0100, Peter Vandenabeele deia:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 09:46:07PM -0200, riel@nl.linux.org wrote:
> > Changed after feedback from many people
> > 
> > 
> >     Pooling patents for progress and protection
> >                     version 2
> > 
> >             Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
> >                     december 26-30, 2002
> >                     january      1, 2000
> > 
> > 

I think this version is more feasible, and somewhat less useful, but I 
still see it nothing like possible or desirable.

> The net effect of my counter proposal to actively seek money in 
> cross-licensing has the important consequence that this organisation
> needs to be very carefully managed by people that are representing the
> Free SW community, but also have a feel for the commercial aspects. The
> organisation will gain enormous power (due to the growing patent portfolio
> and associated Code base) and has the statutory right to negotiate 
> cross-licensing deals and even attack companies that are violating certain
> conditions of use of the portfolio. Management needs to be "democratically
> elected" by the Free SW community. 
>

And may I ask how do you build the census for that democracy?. As I see it
the free software community is an open group, potentially the whole world. 
Currently you don't need anything to join, not even be counted. Mind that 
until now no single organisation has been necessary for free software 
progress.
The FSF has been of undeniable importance. But in case it would disappear 
tomorrow, or go crazy, anyone else could take up their job (except for 
publishing 
new versions of the GPL and other FSF licenses). I think they 
have carefully crafted the system that way, and it is a necessary condition.
In fact other organisations have pretended to represent free software (or 
"open source") 
and nothing irreparable has happened. I don't think your scheme works much if 
there are several patent pools and related institutions (well, I don't even 
see 
it feasible with a single one).

In that sense, software licenses are more useful than institutions, but 
they are only significant against patents if backed by strong contenders.
And they may still imply some redefinition of free software which is 
undesirable.

If you can build an organisation like you envisage, I think it would
pay off much more to use it to fund professional lobbying, like the
pro-swpat people do. We can substitute with the free time from lots of people 
affected, but in case we had such a powerful and rich organisation, that's
the best they could do.

I think I'm repeating myself too much, so I'll leave this subject now.

-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org