the same as charging for the software and thus the software is no longer "free". I think the
process of making money by servicing the software is a better model, and the GPL already
protects the intellectual property. This process won't stop people from filing legal claims
against patents either. So I don't see the value of this. It appears to only be an obstacle and only
adds to the need for people to employ lawyers. It seems to be counter to the idea of GPL itself.
It seems that this should be discussed in the larger open-source community, since it has nothing to do with healthcare.
I would recommend moving the discussion elsewhere.
Dave At 07:40 AM 3/24/2003 -0800, Andrew Ho wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, David Forslund wrote: ... > I also don't understand the patent pool and why this costs money. What is > the point?
Dave, I tried to address this question in the license at http://www.txoutcome.org/scripts/zope/readings/patentpool In particular, the section on "Why this may work":
----------------------- quote from above Why this may work
Beyond the lofty goals of the greater good, this patent pool idea aligns the desires of inventors with the needs of free software developers and all software users.
# What's in it for the inventors / patent-holders?
1. Inventors and patent holders never know whether or when their invention will be useful. This patent pool gives them an opportunity to realize some revenue now without entirely eliminating their chances of "hitting it big" through traditional licensing. 2. Independent inventors are acutely aware that the free software community may implement their invention anyways, if they don't offer a low cost licensing option. The problem is that there can be no low cost licensing option since there are just too many patents and just the trouble of getting a low cost license for each one adds up to a whole lot of trouble and lots of cost. 3. So, if they don't join this patent pool, it will be costly for them to stop all the free software infringers (in terms of both money and bad P.R.). Therefore, they might as well join this patent pool to get some money and grab some good P.R. while they can. 4. Free software community typically adopt innovations faster than traditional software houses anyways - so, participating in this patent pool may accelerate the broader adoption of important inventions. 5. This patent pool gives inventions special visibility since all patents go through a peer-review process before they enter the pool!
# What's in it for the free software developers / end-users?
1. Low and easily calculated cost - You don't have to use all the patents in the pool. Even if there is just one patent that you need, the price is so low that it is worth it. No one really likes to break the law or receive a nasty letter from a lawyer. 2. Free software is about exchanging ideas. It would be nice to be able to openly, prominently, freely cite patents as references without fear. This is the only way that ideas can truly be free. Patents are real, they are enforceable, we have to deal with them. 3. You may initially need only one patent, but you get everything else in the pool now and in the future for that same low price. 4. More software will eventually become available under GPL. Once software are licensed according to the requirements of this patent pool, they will automatically become GPL once the enabling patents expire. In the mean time, the license is nearly as good as GPL - since they can be improved upon and re-distributed under the same terms (as the modified GPL license). 5. More and more innovative software will initially only be available via GPL, because this patent pool is the easiest one to use and requires the lowest cost. 6. Anyone can become an inventor and join the pool. :-) ----------------- end quote
> I understand patenting things so that others can't patent them and > charge money, but this is only as good as your ability to spend money > defending the patent.
Not true. No one likes to litigate a patent.
If we can produce a mechanism through which inventors can get public recognition, some money, and a sense that they are on the right side of promoting freedom (e.g. encouraging uptake of GPL - rather than being the enemy of freedom), then everyone wins.
I don't know whether my scheme will work or not, that's an empirical question. As an inventor and patent holder, all I can say is that I am willing to give a license as I have put forth. We will have to see whether there are any takers and whether I am the only inventor in the world that is willing to join the pool. I appreciate Tim's willingness to review my ideas and perhaps even becoming the first licensee.
I look forward to your further comments.
Best regards,
Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org
