Lists Home |
Date Index |
* James Fuller <email@example.com> [2005-06-07 04:46]:
> Alan Gutierrez wrote:
> >* James Fuller <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005-06-07 03:52]:
> >>The patent application process becomes an effective barier to
> >>> entry for the small innovators that they tout as the little guy
> >>> that the patent office serves to protect.
> >>> I might have an idea that is every bit as novel as something
> >>> found at Large Firm Research, but when do I have the time, as an
> >>> individual, to write out a patent application? I barely have
> >>> enough time to write out my code and documentation.
> >>> I've often thought of some sort of patent union for small
> >>> firms, open source developers, a treaty organization. The Apache
> >>> 2.0 License does something like this.
> >>by being a member of such a union, one could default all
> >>invention to the union for protection...of course nuclear
> >>options would have to be built into the union's charter so no
> >>corporation could somehow take it over...might have to go down
> >>an NGO route as well. A franchise model whereby a network of
> >>vertical / horiontal industries have their own unions, with an
> >>international umbrella org.
> > Such an organization would be non-profit. I'm not sure what NGO
> > means. I know what it stands for, not what it means legally.
> > The franchining and vertical / horizonal, you could explain
> > more. I'd like to see it structured so that it doesn't become
> > some form of guild.
Oh yes, I did want to note that the idea behind this open
portfolio is that it does more than indemnify, it provides a
source for counter-claims if a portfolio member is threatened.
So the charter is tricky, since it means that the organization
would would enforce the patents.
Ripe for abuse.
So, to carify. To prevent takeover, a poison pill. To prevent a
patent takedown of a member, the organization would threaten
counter-claims drawn from the open patent portfolio.
Alan Gutierrez - email@example.com