Vendor vs. user funding, centralization

Posted Jun 3, 2004 16:17 UTC (Thu) by hazelsct (guest, #3659)
Parent article: Open source: Prepare for attack (ZDNet)

User funding on any serious scale seems an extremely unlikely prospect here. It's a classic commons, since free riders benefit from the protection, and unlike vendors who gain name recognition and some degree of influence, there is no incentive for users to participate.

Also, centralization is helpful, but is it necessary? Why not have seven different organizations backed by seven different constituencies filing seven different patent review suits (to invalidate them), and support (provide prior art etc.) and reference and amicus brief each other as appropriate?

This is clearly an important issue, and some new readers may be reached by this piece. But its central recommendation is somewhat questionable and needs either further explanation or modification.

Vendor vs. user funding, centralization

Posted Jun 3, 2004 18:47 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

The entire darn point of the editorial is that there is a company doing this, which CNET seems to have blown for me by not attributing that I am a director of said company. Since the company's press person sent them the editorial, I would have expected them to do so. I asked CNET to correct that.

Bruce

Vendor vs. user funding, centralization

Posted Jun 4, 2004 21:38 UTC (Fri) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link]

Wow, a reply from Bruce Perens, I'm honored! :-)

Okay, I think I see the vision, but I'm not getting something.

So this company is going to be paid (by whom?) to invalidate patents? How noble and charitable. But why can't other companies then turn around and offer insurance based on that work, undercutting this company and free-riding since they're not paying to invalidate patents? Who pays this company? (Such a free rider would basically be saying, "For this smaller fee than Bruce's, we'll guarantee that the software doesn't infringe any patents, or if it does, Bruce's company will find prior art for us and you'll be safe.")

I don't see this working unless the vendors are paying for the indemnification, but that's vendor support, not user support, which was my point...

And again, why is there a need for centralization around this one company? Why can't the EFF go after some, the FSF others, etc.?