decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Patents problem visbility raised | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Patents problem visbility raised
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 02:17 AM EDT
As I thought too.

BTW it's now been demoted from the front page to the technology one.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Patents problem visbility raised
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 04:03 AM EDT
'No simple answer'
I can think of one: make any patent or specification required to fulfil any standard (either a de jure or a de facto standard) public domain for implementation, ie the licensing fee is zero, nilch, bada, nothing.

When the standard is being set up, the IP holder has the right to refuse to allow the Imaginary Property to be used in the standard, but if they push/allow it, then they agree to a free licence to anyone wanting to implement the standard: want to implement GIF? you get a free licence to LZW compression (ok, I know the patent has run out, but it would have solved all the problems it had); want to implement OOXML? you get a free licence to all the patents/IP that encumber it; want to implement the de facto standard FAT for your filesystem? you get a free licence to any Imaginary Property that might encumber it.

Simples!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )