The previous patent clause did not do what you claim it did. On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Jonathan Bishop <bish...@bishopphillips.com > wrote:
> > Simon Disk: > > > Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under > Intellectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license > under IPR (and therefore also patent rights)… > > > > Yes. I agree. That seems to be the case. S4.1, S7.1, and S7.2, however > don’t seem to do what the previous patent peace clause did however. This > one entitles LL to deal with the IP, but it does not extinguish the right > for an creator to assert patent rights over content with respect to the > created content of other creators, so it does not seem to go as far in > ensuring patent peace as the previous TOS. In fact by grouping patents with > copyright and trademarks under IP it looks to me like it might have the > opposite effect – to actively endorse the establishment and assertion of > such rights with respect to patents. > > > > I wonder if this was intended. There are strong arguments on both sides of > the view, but given Ginsu Linden’s (Linden Lawyer) previous strong > pronouncements against patents in software generally and specifically in the > context of user generated content in SL, a TOS that appears to omit the more > encompassing patent peace clause is surprising. > > > > No doubt there is a reason for it, but I can’t see the intrusion of patent > protection into SL content as beneficial for innovation and advancement of > the VW concept at this early stage in the game. > > > > > > Regards > > > > *Jonathan Bishop** > **Managing Director* > > * * > > ** > > *Bishop Phillips Consulting* | Melbourne, Australia – Vancouver, Canada > Mobile +61 411.404.483 | Office +61 (3) 9525.7066 | Fax +61 (3) 9525.6080 > bish...@bishopphillips.com | www.bishopphillips.com** > > * * > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com [mailto: > opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com] *On Behalf Of *Simon Disk > *Sent:* Thursday, 1 April 2010 11:48 PM > *To:* opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com > *Subject:* Re: [opensource-dev] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing > gone? > > > > Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under > Intelectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license > under IPR (and therefore also patent rights). > > > > Under section 4.1 it defines IPR as: > > > > "Intellectual Property Rights" means copyrights, trademarks, service marks, > trade dress, publicity rights, database rights, *patent rights*, and other > intellectual property rights or proprietary rights recognized by law. > > > > Then under section 7.1: > > > > You retain any and all *Intellectual Property Rights* you already hold > under applicable law in Content you upload, publish, and submit to or > through the Servers, Websites, and other areas of the Service, subject to > the rights, licenses, and other terms of this Agreement, including any > underlying rights of other users or Linden Lab in Content that you may use > or modify. > > > > Then under 7.2: > > > > You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or > through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby > automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, > sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, > prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the > purposes of providing and promoting the Service. > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges >
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
