Herbert Graf <mailinglist3 <at> farcite.net> writes:

> - "IP companies": whose only income is litigation of patents they hold
> - patent holders that wait around a let supposed infringement happen
> until the supposed infringer has a ton of money, and then basically
> holds the supposed infringer hostage, either pay me what I say, or I
> will sue to out of business

There are 2 kinds of IP companies, those which exploit their IP by licensing it
out for manufacturing or use (by themselves or by others), and those which
'hunt' 'infringers', including by, f.ex., disseminating 'free' protocols and
file formats which actually use IP that has limitation clauses for any further
use apart from that specific format. Several entities (among others the EU and
the DOJ afaik) fell for this trick repeatedly. The GIF image compression (LZW)
algorythm's aftershocks still linger, and there are many more like this, yet the
powers that be seem to continue to be clueless and insist on pricing structure
examinations (the EU vs. m$, recently), instead of getting to the bottom of the
problem and understanding that commercial protocols and formats are, always have
been, and always will be just that: *commercial*. As in, 'we will make money off
of you'. Therefore, open protocols NOT burdened by patents are the way to go for
any kind of public use.

Then, some large, benevolent (giant) companies who sit on a mountain of patents
and 'promise not to enforce them (against <insert this or that populist
interest/group to be flattered here>)' is a little like a satated lion that
promises not to nab any sheep this week or this month (or from this particular
flock). Ironically, they may even keep their word, but legally sell off some of
that patented IP to spinoffs or third parties, of course without passing on the
'benevolent' part.

Aside: m$ file formats are chock full with patented algorythm applications, the
latest of which has recently shown its teeth (the 'long filename' patent).
Continued use of 'free' (as in, first time it's pure love, thereafter it's $50
per use) file formats and other products incorporating patented IP are 
financial and security (attained by 'obscurity' - aka I fooled myself but not
the hacker next door) accidents waiting to happen.

Then there are those who 'jump out of the bushes' and claim infringement after
the 'perpertators' make money. These should have their cases cut short. Anybody
not enforcing one's IP *immediately* (i.e. not when the perps make money, but
within a reasonable grace period - at most a few months) should not be allowed
to try to enforce it later. This would also take care of the 'lions' I alluded
to above. 

In fact, as far as I know, the law already stipulates this. Non-enforcement of a
trademark leads to its loss, what about patents in the contexts described above ?

Peter P.


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist