[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Re: Open source drivers and patents (3)

Keith Lofstrom keithl at kl-ic.com
Thu Mar 16 00:32:55 UTC 2006


On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:36:38PM -0800, plug_0 at robinson-west.com wrote:
> I've been following this discussion and have some questions:
> 
> What are patents and what are they truly intended for?

Intentions are held by people.  Which people's intentions do you care
about?

The intentions of the writers of the Constitution were primarily to
reward folks with temporary monopolies for publically disclosing trade
secrets, in particular manufacturing arts that European governments
did not want us to have.  Cash grants were considered instead, but
there was no source of funding.  Later, this became transmogrified
into rewarding original inventors.  Later, this became a reward for
lawyers working for large companies.

> How costly is it to violate a patent?

The sky is the limit.  Lemelson got over a billion dollars on a patent
that was later thrown out of court by a persistent opponent.  The
recent Blackberry suit was $160M IIRC.  Violating my patents costs
almost nothing, because I can't easily fight back.

> Why don't companies outsource Linux support to other companies?
?? Many do.   Is this a question about patents?

> How valuable is any electronic device if it is artficially limited
> by politics?

Depends.  Radios are valuable, and very limited by government.  
Big Mouth Billy Bass is useless, and unlimited by government. 
Politics is not government, but a way to choose a government.

> I hear that seeds are being patented and that farmers are under attack
> from biochemical companies.  What was the situation with patents prior to
> the Industrial Revolution verses the situation today?  Long term, will
> all the good ideas be patented making them unavailable to FOSS devs?

IBM and other large companies have huge patent portfolios they 
explicitly permit open source developers to use.  If Microsoft ever
tried to use their patent portfolio to stop Linux, IBM would use their
patent portfolio and huge legal staff to shut down Microsoft stone
cold dead.  Mutual assured destruction.  Small outfits with patents,
"patent mills", will attack anything and anybody - legalized extortion.

> To what degree should a society protect inventors through royalties
> and patents?

To the same extent that it protects prisoners with firing squads.
Inventors are not "protected" by patents,  mostly they are thwarted
by them.  Threats and protections are two different things.  So are
expectations and property.

Patents are a license to sue and create economic havoc without being
punished.  They are allegedly justified by the larger havoc that would
occur if inventors were not paid - but unlike lawyers, inventors and
others have many ways to make money besides lawsuits and extortion.
Linux, and science, and many parts of the free market show that you
can make plenty of money creating ideas without government-mandated
monopolies.


> Should patents be harder to get?

Impossible in almost all cases, except for mine :-)  There are some
interesting notions in the book "Innovation and its Discontents". 
It isn't about easier/harder, it is about appropriate and productive.
Should it be easier or harder to get money?  Depends on whether you
are talking about free exchange or robbery.

If you want a book that will reinforce some of your opinions, read
"Hot Property" by Pat Choate.  You can absorb some history from that. 
I think Choate gets quite a few things wrong, but...

There are many books on the subject of patents and their public value.
You will learn more from reading the right books than asking questions
on a technical software list.

Keith

-- 
Keith Lofstrom          keithl at keithl.com         Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Scan ICs



More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list