Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
The key thing about a Fair Troll is that he would have to make that patent irrevocably available to all members of the DPL pool on DPL terms. So a Fair Troll would only attack companies outside the DPL pool. Those could again eliminate or at least greatly reduce the problem by joining the DPL when they get attacked. A Fair Troll would have to leave peaceful people alone but would have to pursue all others relentlessly. In fact, the better the Fair Troll does his job, the more he will contribute to the DPL cause and the more attractive it will be for community members to work with him."
Posted May 18, 2010 22:25 UTC (Tue)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted May 18, 2010 23:29 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted May 19, 2010 1:18 UTC (Wed)
by Ed_L. (guest, #24287)
[Link]
Posted May 19, 2010 8:18 UTC (Wed)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 19, 2010 10:39 UTC (Wed)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link] (2 responses)
But the most problems are caused by the non-producing companies, aren't they?
In this case the patent system could be abolished since trolls would be the only ones left actively using it.
I think it's not that easy: there is an patent-innovation-value connection, at least in the shareholders view, so even the producing companies might want to keep the patent system.
Posted May 19, 2010 10:54 UTC (Wed)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
Posted May 20, 2010 11:08 UTC (Thu)
by Tobu (subscriber, #24111)
[Link]
Posted May 19, 2010 7:50 UTC (Wed)
by mjthayer (guest, #39183)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted May 19, 2010 8:29 UTC (Wed)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted May 19, 2010 8:53 UTC (Wed)
by mjthayer (guest, #39183)
[Link] (13 responses)
I'm not at all convinced by that analogy. GPL infringement is much harder to do accidentally, and not generally used as a way to pro-actively extort money from people.
Posted May 19, 2010 9:05 UTC (Wed)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted May 19, 2010 9:15 UTC (Wed)
by mjthayer (guest, #39183)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted May 19, 2010 9:27 UTC (Wed)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted May 19, 2010 10:35 UTC (Wed)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link] (9 responses)
General bad feeling for joining some organization that it doesn't care about? I don't know that in which part of the world you live, but in my parts we had lots of bad experience with "revolutionaries" who "in the name of greater good" coerced people to join their organization.
Posted May 19, 2010 10:49 UTC (Wed)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted May 19, 2010 12:11 UTC (Wed)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link] (1 responses)
The problem is that big patent holders (think IBM) are very likely to be essentially a dozen (or more) independent businesses inside. For some of the components it might make (some) sense to DPL their patents, for others it would not. And then is the hassle of checking it all out, and doing the legal legwork can cost a nice bundle. Won't happen with those that matter.
Posted May 19, 2010 12:28 UTC (Wed)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
Posted May 19, 2010 14:37 UTC (Wed)
by zotz (guest, #26117)
[Link] (5 responses)
So long as you could do this and get protection when the number of patents you hold = 0...
Posted May 19, 2010 15:03 UTC (Wed)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
Posted May 19, 2010 15:11 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (3 responses)
- sell its patents to $TROLL
This could mean $BADCORP is immune to suits from DPL members, while it can still profit from trolling, indirectly.
I think probably you should not allow people to join the DPL, unless they can contribute usefully to the pool. The entire point of the pool would be to get *patent-holders* into a no-sue+collective-defence zone. Allowing non-patent-holders in would just weaken that zone.
That said, you could have the DPL have "collective defence of pool-members and of worthwhile 3rd parties" as a goal. You could include entities like:
- Users being sued for patent infringement in use of free software
as the worthwhile entities.
However, I think you'd need to be *very* careful about extending the "no-sue" aspect of the DPL to non-patent-contributing entities. As you should always be *very* careful about giving away your rights to sue.
NB: I havn't read of any of the details of this DPL.
Posted May 20, 2010 12:24 UTC (Thu)
by zotz (guest, #26117)
[Link]
drew
Posted May 20, 2010 15:29 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
That doesn't sound right.
Posted May 21, 2010 9:12 UTC (Fri)
by hingo (guest, #14792)
[Link]
Posted May 19, 2010 19:36 UTC (Wed)
by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link]
There's a little bit more to the "patent pool by day, patent troll by night" plan, which I originally bounced off of Bradley Kuhn in the hallway track at SCALE. I'll put it on my to-do list to post a blog entry about it. ("User dmarti on LWN" == Don Marti).
Posted May 19, 2010 13:37 UTC (Wed)
by zooko (guest, #2589)
[Link] (4 responses)
Beyond that, it's a brilliant idea. It looks like we might be able to use patent law to promulgate freedom in a similar way that the GPL used copyright law to promulgate freedom. Bravo!
I've been thinking of adding some sort of DPL'ish clause to a future version of my Transitive Grace Period Public Licence but I can't see how:
http://tahoe-lafs.org/~zooko/tgppl.pdf
Regards,
Zooko
Posted May 20, 2010 13:45 UTC (Thu)
by dmk (guest, #50141)
[Link] (3 responses)
this whole story bases on the assumption, that patents are only used in attacks and counter-attacks. but their primary intention/use is to protect an "invention" so that the patent holder can make money out of it...
Posted May 20, 2010 21:47 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
That's all very well, but there is no evidence that patents actually achieve their intended aims, and there is a lot of evidence they don't.
The examples I often see quoted are Watt's steam engine patents, and then Bell's and then Strowger's telephone patents.
Picking up on a couple more examples, Swann's electric light patents didn't protect him from Edison ripping them off (there's a lot of evidence Edison's reputation as an inventor is undeserved - he was the Microsoft of his day at ripping off other peoples' inventions), and the Curtiss-Wright patents pretty much doomed the US from following up its first successful flight into a lead in aviation technology - the US flew European aircraft in the First World War because their aviation industry was mired in patents.
And even where patents *allegedly* work - Big Pharma - their primary use is to protect variations on old drugs, most genuine research is done by blue-sky corps, while the old guard grow fat on patents that should have been long expired.
Cheers,
Posted May 21, 2010 5:11 UTC (Fri)
by dmk (guest, #50141)
[Link] (1 responses)
Just because the perceived use of patents shifted towards the 'gaming the system' use does not mean that they lost their original purpose.
My point about the DPL: Why would you spend money and resources on patents if you couldn't protect your inventions anymore?
Cheers,
p.s.: I don't think software patents are a good idea, anyways. They hinder
For traditional businesses, I would presume, the problem is not as big but there nevertheless.
Posted May 21, 2010 15:55 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
To protect you from other guys with patents.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Perhaps. But what's to stop e.g. Microsoft from selling a patent to an NPE with a perpetual royalty-free license-back as part of the APA? The NPE would still have no tangible assets, and could go after anyone but e.g. Microsoft.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
You are both right. Also the idea is that it might become interesting for *some* trolls to join the DPL pool, if in return they can get more high quality patents from the community. Even then, there is no doubt that many trolls would just remain on the outside.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
The main benefit is just that it would create pressure for the Microsoft's of this world to join the DPL pool. In a dream end scenario we would have all "producing" companies in the DPL pool and just some trolls left outside. In this case the patent system could be abolished since trolls would be the only ones left actively using it. Of course, just like all software will never be GPL, all companies will never join the DPL, but to just have pressure in that direction would create relative advantage for FOSS. (or anyone who is not IBM or Microsoft, really)
In a dream end scenario we would have all "producing" companies in the DPL pool and just some trolls left outside.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
But the most problems are caused by the non-producing companies, aren't they?
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Not my area of expertise at all. I guess from purely a FOSS perspective we have GIF patents, MP3 patents, other multimedia patents, Microsofts FAT and other patents... these seem to have been our biggest problems for the last 15 years. Red Hat and Novell being attacked by a troll seems to be a more recent development.
The problem is also with the legislator, the way I see it. Using a wedge to have companies side with either trolls or the fair troll could bring legislative change.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
So I'm the one responsible for feeding the original idea from dmarti@lwn to Florian.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
My main worry about the idea is exactly what you say. It is like suggesting that the road to world peace is to first produce more weapons. On the other hand, RMS invented the GPL in an attempt to attack evil aspects of copyright legislation, and the way to do that is to write more software that is likewise copyrighted. So it depends on which analogy you want to hang yourself onto.
But there may also be other gotchas to worry about. For instance, it is not obvious to me that the DPL will be compatible with the GPL (especially v3 but possibly v2). That would depend on the exact language, but it is of course a requirement that it could be useful for FOSS at all. (With or without Fair Trolls.)
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Yes, hence the hesitation. Maybe "world peace" is the better analogy then.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
The counterargument (for arguments sake...) would be that this is the only way to play the patent game, so it is a property of patents that they are more hostile than copyright, which I believe is entirely true. There is no question that the real solution would be to abolish at least software patents, but the discussion opened up by the DPL is to find a solution given that software patents will exist and we won't succeed in changing those laws. I personally believe there can then only be suboptimal solutions anyway, it's just a matter of picking the "least bad" ones.
One way to think about this is to say that this is the way the patent system works, and we would be more than happy if the patent system is changed. The "Fair Troll" activity would only be there to expose the problem.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
This part is easier to address: The answer of course is that the outsiders should just join the DPL pool and be secure. If they don't want to join the DPL, then we can rightfully ask, why not? Maybe they're not so friendly after all?
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
There is a point to be made about pardoning past infringement though. So maybe by joining the DPL virtual pool, also your historical infringements of the DPL patents should be covered. Otherwise the trolls could still extort money from companies who did not yet join DPL just because this is the first time they hear about it.
The point is, if someone *refuses* to join the DPL pool, they should be considered fair game, their choice. But there shouldn't be any innocent casualties.
If they don't want to join the DPL, then we can rightfully ask, why not?
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
I agree with your sentiment, but I should point out (as a technicality) that the DPL would be a license, it is not an organization. So my use of "joining the DPL" is actually misleading, what actually would be done is to "license all of your patents under the DPL". (Analogy: It is incorrect to say that someone "joins the GPL".)
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
I apologize for the confusion. (The background is that effectively by issuing your patents under the DPL license, you join a virtual pool, but it is not an actual organization.)
Your comment is still valid though.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Yes, I don't think IBM or any one of the big patent holders would ever actually join something like the DPL. And this is regardless of the Fair Troll aspect of it.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Even so (I believe Florian pointed this out in an earlier post, calling it a litmus test) even then the DPL will serve as a useful tool highlighting the fact that they don't, and setting a higher standard. (I also always found it insulting that IBM pledged a selection of 500 patents they promised not to sue FOSS projects for. It immediately invited the question "...but you reserve the right to sue us with all your other patents?") Sometimes a good first step is just to show by example a better way of doing things. Whether others will actually follow, is then the next problem. (The Fair Troll idea then takes a more active approach than just that first step.)
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
afaik this is the intent of the DPL. Note that you would also license potential future patents, so you are still committing something.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
the original inspiration of the fair troll concept then was to realize that a non aggression pool with zero patents is not a revolutionary step forward...
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
- join the DPL
- Developers being sued for developing same
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Patents that once have been in the DPL pool will not ever go away. The DPL is a license. Like GPL, the code that is under GPL will always be so, even if the original owner changes his mind, sells the rights or whatever. So the above risk scenario fortunately doesn't exist.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Hence also the proposed fix is not necessary. A design goal for the DPL is that it must include all worthwile parties, for instance you should be able to join even if you don't actually own a single patent. So the test for whether you are worthwile, is that you are fully ok with joining the DPL pool yourself. If you don't want to join the DPL, you are left with the traditional ways of defending yourself.
"Hallway track"
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Wol
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model
Flo
progress and creativity in our modern society.
Mueller: The DPL and the 'Fair Troll' business model