en.swpat.org is a wiki.   You can edit it.   May contain statements End Software Patents does not endorse.

November 2014: About Microsoft’s patent licence for .NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits

Defensive patent pools

From en.swpat.org
Revision as of 05:06, 22 September 2014 by Ciaran (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

What this article documents is not a solution.
For information of the risks of putting too much work into these, see duds and non-solutions. See also: Abolition is the only solution.

Not to be confused with Defensive patent acquisition.

Defensive patent pools is a proposal to reduce the harm of software patents to a specific group of software developers. On the plus side, there's no need to change legislation or gamble on a court case, but on the negative side, they can only solve a very small part of the problem.

Not all patent pools are defensive. Some, like MPEG-LA, are formed to maximise the danger of a certain set of patents. To differentiate, we'll call them patent cartels.

The most common goal is to protect developers of free software (such as GNU/Linux), so this article will use that example.


[edit] The idea

The general idea is that a group of patent holders who are friendly towards free software can "pool" their patents together and agree that these patents won't be used against free software developers, and that these patents may be used for counter-suing any patent holder that threatens free software developers.

[edit] Limits to effectiveness

  1. Most large patent holders already have non-aggression agreements with the other large patent holders, so this limits the utility of the pooled patents for counter-suing. (see: Patent non-aggression pacts)
  2. The members of the pool are, by definition, not the patent holders that we are afraid of.
  3. Counter-suing only works if you are being sued by a company that develops software. There is nothing that defensive patent pools can do against patent trolls (litigation companies that don't develop software).
  4. To quote Jason Schultz, former staff attorney at the EFF, "The perception is that bigger companies only commit their least-effective, least-important patents to a patent pool."[1]

[edit] Examples

Open Invention Network is the best known defensive patent pool.

[edit] Other patent pools

Defensive patent pools should not be confused with patent-licensing pools. An example of the latter is the MPEG Licensing Authority (MPEG-LA). MPEG-LA acts as a single representative for dozens of patent holders who claim their patents are essential for an implementation of the MPEG video formats. This might sometimes be described as a pooling of patents, but the purpose is to make enforcement against developers more severe, not to defend them.

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/defensive-patent-license-makes-patents-less-e

This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (Main ESP website) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (News) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (See: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, not a statement of ESP's views or policies, so no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (See: Help:How to make a good contribution)