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
> 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?
> 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.
>> 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
>> 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 that had the effect
> of aiding your ASICBOOST patent without disclosing that fact in your BIP
> your pull-req. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on voluntary
> disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not.
> : BIP: https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki
> : ASICBOOST PATENT https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=en
> : 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
> license also has anti-patent protections.
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev mailing list