|
|
|
| Authored by: sproggit on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 01:42 AM EDT |
I think where this will lead is a scenario in which software patents become more
expensive for those wishing to file, because in essence what would happen is
that more existing patents would be overturned and rescinded.
In the short term this might be a useful tactic. It would mean that the cost of
patent filing would become higher, because hopefully many existing, granted
patents [for which the owner has had to purchase or pay the filing fees] are
deemed null and void.
We may need to be careful, however, because in the event that there are some
genuinely innovative patents out there, this tactic would actually strengthen
them considerably. If there were a concerted campaign to eliminate 'weak'
software patents, then anything that is left would be deemed 'strong' by
default, and would have the potential to be even more disruptive.
The only safeguard against this outcome is the divorce which PJ espouses and
with which I agree.
My original post that launched this thread was intended to support PJs point of
view, but to try and bring some focus, structure and methodology to our
collective approach to this task. I've watched threads here on Groklaw where
contributors have quickly dismantled specious claims from the likes of SCO,
Microsoft and others. They have done this with their first-hand knowledge,
experience and abilities.
I just thought that with a little coordination and structure, we might build
much more value on top of those contributions. We must not lose sight, either,
of the potential for evidence re-use. As many have commented, software ideas
tend to be extensions and developments of things which go before them. So a
library of prior art may end up having a disproportionately powerful effect,
since we may be able to use well-documented samples multiple times.
Well, the idea is out there. I'll be happy to contribute energy to take this
forward, but as per my original post, I think we need the skills and experience
of someone like Mark or PJ to help us understand what the solution needs to look
like. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, May 21 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
Don't target any patents, but what about those Nortel patents spun off to that
troll?
We really need OIN to keep things quiet to avoid tipping them off, but if
someone starts working through the patents and prior art, building up a
review/defense database, as the arsenal builds up we can take them out one by
one.
I don't think we should take out patents willy-nilly, but if we think someone is
planning to troll with them ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
