Vasco Névoa wrote: > Hi. Sorry to barge in like this, but I don't quite understand the problem to > begin with... > Isn't open source code by definition protected against subsequent patents? > It is part of the patenting process to search for conflicting publications; > if they find any, then the candidate idea is not a novelty and cannot be > patented. Publishing is the best weapon against (subsequent) patents: cheap > and effective. > I think we should just add some way to automatically timestamp every code > check-in in a legally binding way, like using some outside certification > entity's digital signature (that carries a legally recognizable timestamp). > An open-source public repository is a valid publication of ideas, which are > therefore not patentable. > What do you think?
Bogdan Bivolaru already pointed out some practical issues with your theoretical outline. However, there are some additional issues: The biggest in my view is that you seem to assume that open source developers somehow (magic?) manage to write only code which does not infringe (in somebody's eyes) on existing patents, or won't infringe on already filed patents that haven't been published yet. There are even legal reasons to avoid doing a patent search before you start developing something, as you then avoid knowingly infringing, which makes a difference, at least in the US. Then there's the practical matter that if you have a collection of patents you can frequently come to some cross-licensing agreement if someone else in your industry starts hassling you with their patents. If you have nothing, it's much easier for them to grind you into the dirt, if only with legal fees, if they so desire. --Jon Radel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OpenMoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
