Pledging to not use patents offensively defeats the point of owning patents. The point of owning a patent is so that you can use it offensively, either to prevent competition, or get licensing fees.
Obtaining a patent for defense doesn't make sense. The litigants you need to worry about do not produce or make anything. Their 'product' is patent lawsuits. Unless you have a patent on using a mail-merge program to sue people, your defensive patents are useless in that situation. On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:38:07AM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via > bitcoin-dev wrote: >> I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Current >> users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not, as the >> future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin technology >> fully proprietary and less valuable. > > Glad to hear you're taking a conservative approach. > > So I assume Rootstock is going to do something stronger then, like > Blockstream's DPL + binding patent pledge to only use patents defensively? > > https://www.blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/ > > Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo. > >> If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL can >> enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join the DPL. >> (http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license) >> >> So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat of being >> sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the same way >> they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if they >> joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the >> inventions prior joining DPL. >> >> DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not hire >> patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and what >> rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may be >> prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries. >> >> Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice), so if >> Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company owning the >> patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties. > > Indeed. However, you're also free to adopt the DPL irrevocably by additionally > stating that you will never invoke that 180-day notice provision (or more > humorously, make it a 100 year notice period to ensure any patents expire!). > > If you're concerned about this problem, I'd suggest that Rootstock do exactly > that. > >> Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals, the sole >> existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger to Bitcoin >> future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents. > > To be clear, modulo the revocability provision, it's a danger mainly to those > who are unwilling to adopt the DPL themselves, perhaps because they support > software patents. > >> If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosure), you >> cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the US, where >> you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specific to >> prevent the publishers filing a US patent. > > Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had the effect > of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your BIP > nor > your pull-req[3]. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on voluntary > disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not. > > [1]: BIP: https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki > [2]: ASICBOOST PATENT https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=en > [3]: Extra nonce pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102 > >> What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and proposal to the >> Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users a >> worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable license for >> the content of the e-mail or BIP. > > A serious problem here is the definition of "Bitcoin users". Does Bitcoin > Classic count? Bitcoin Unlimited? What if Bitcoin forks? > > Better to grant _everyone_ a irrevocable license. > > > Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bitcoin Core > license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the > copyright > license also has anti-patent protections. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev