Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15509D for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:07:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f180.google.com (mail-qt0-f180.google.com [209.85.216.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 073F2E0 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:07:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f180.google.com with SMTP id s49so82431853qta.0 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:07:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=I0bXvYQ4SBVLm0qnUBXzVyROiRyAy5I2Y6ieMLYoBFI=; b=DaspL3pgwkFJVK9wevadQPFh+2VmHq84UlkYWssGPfAcr3JEg20ijjkhtlUGGwqm/Y znn2E+Oixr5FvCXsaob0GrnhCa4w6kVgXpiB7NmpTDF4X5yzqXASMJGz2Mh+GTqYGhJi 0i+UJEgudwXeIxmMkIeNAbnrRdkavCjAi6LXN5K5jmVZrMAICeRQGBdtO+qY98z1WUPF FVI8sRbdyt4VI63aA063v25Nyd4tXdIxL4iAOpYcfPFVyZzzDMFrJD3sDddGMX1Nu1lY jH5Cr+PPUSlPR6XO+noaHdGvWampMTm34NViJqCYZMtIpoiDl+pWD380gtywsINAzY1S yI3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=I0bXvYQ4SBVLm0qnUBXzVyROiRyAy5I2Y6ieMLYoBFI=; b=HAfh60J/bvMArJp7rCbtbSpS+uRTtX3u2AgBZvQWKHOQdWuDpJhZscXGYNl4e55y/9 MDuvDu+fyuOn0xdCA2bu6231VtdW5Ob9kQdyPR+NT76fHvuwMVUPRQsEz0uyAWvAQPAs jw5qvvOQiVYwYT28olfMZ0E6LOtjGmtbAhIpOTX9LmlGDlLfMepvGAN8nd0Ip8P6iSqG S/gMAtwPEd+cjYvzFr2eb2QphjfUUNbTJUm5WNIGlf04AZm8Elb9cZFeba52maBLu6hz fQEeeX6NJmuhs8jURN2FVxZcw5jcznJOwkvYdIfmtbl4JT3IycgMEa/+QdmVtlvfSuG/ GpJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmPY3HmepmShNI7fEL98+t6cSXTqypxT7CmDBofq6AGVS3b8UaqSAl0U2ZEHDqANKFMTzFtu84qF8uojA== X-Received: by 10.200.55.59 with SMTP id o56mr13284673qtb.65.1476479232204; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:07:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20161014105757.GA8049@fedora-21-dvm> In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Robinson Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:07:01 +0000 Message-ID: To: Nick ODell , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113c037227998e053ed99c10 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:16:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] DPL is not only not enough, but brings unfounded confidence to Bitcoin users X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 21:07:15 -0000 --001a113c037227998e053ed99c10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable First, non-practicing entities are definitely a problem, but they're far from the only companies involved in software patent litigation. As you say yourself, one reason companies obtain patents is to "prevent competition"=E2=80=94meaning they produce a competing product. Look at the billion-dollar lawsuits in the smartphone patent wars. (Unless you're referring to "patent privateers" that assert claims and are only indirectly sponsored and controlled by real tech companies. I don't think the Defensive Patent License directly addresses that problem=E2=80=94= Section 7.1 defines an "affiliate" relatively narrowly=E2=80=94although the Apache = 2.0 license arguably does, with its broad definition of "Legal Entity." I don't profess to know anything about the reasoning behind the DPL's wording, and I may be missing something; maybe a future version of the DPL will close that loophole if it becomes an actual problem.) Second, as several people have noted on this list, patent applications unfortunately seem to be more effective than defensive publication at getting prior art under the noses of the patent examiners. So obtaining a patent for defensive purposes makes it more difficult for others to obtain patents on the same subject matter. (Usual disclaimers apply. Nothing you read on bitcoin-dev is legal advice; don't take legal advice from mailing lists; come on) On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:01 PM Nick ODell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: Pledging to not use patents offensively defeats the point of owning patents= . The point of owning a patent is so that you can use it offensively, either to prevent competition, or get licensing fees. Obtaining a patent for defense doesn't make sense. The litigants you need t= o worry about do not produce or make anything. Their 'product' is patent lawsuits. Unless you have a patent on using a mail-merge program to sue people, your defensive patents are useless in that situation. On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:38:07AM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Current >> users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not, as the >> future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin technology >> fully proprietary and less valuable. > > Glad to hear you're taking a conservative approach. > > So I assume Rootstock is going to do something stronger then, like > Blockstream's DPL + binding patent pledge to only use patents defensively= ? > > https://www.blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/ > > Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo. > >> If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL can >> enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join the DPL. >> (http://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license) >> >> So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat of being >> sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the same wa= y >> they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if they >> joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the >> inventions prior joining DPL. >> >> DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not hire >> patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and what >> rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may be >> prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries. >> >> Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice), so if >> Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company owning th= e >> patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties. > > Indeed. However, you're also free to adopt the DPL irrevocably by additionally > stating that you will never invoke that 180-day notice provision (or more > humorously, make it a 100 year notice period to ensure any patents expire!). > > If you're concerned about this problem, I'd suggest that Rootstock do exactly > that. > >> Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals, the sole >> existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger to Bitcoin >> future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents. > > To be clear, modulo the revocability provision, it's a danger mainly to those > who are unwilling to adopt the DPL themselves, perhaps because they support > software patents. > >> If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosure), you >> cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the US, where >> you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specific to >> prevent the publishers filing a US patent. > > Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had the effect > of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in your BIP nor > your pull-req[3]. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on voluntary > disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not. > > [1]: BIP: https://github.com/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki > [2]: ASICBOOST PATENT https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=3D= en > [3]: Extra nonce pull request: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102 > >> What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and proposal to the >> Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users a >> worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable license for >> the content of the e-mail or BIP. > > A serious problem here is the definition of "Bitcoin users". Does Bitcoin > Classic count? Bitcoin Unlimited? What if Bitcoin forks? > > Better to grant _everyone_ a irrevocable license. > > > Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bitcoin Core > license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the copyright > license also has anti-patent protections. > > -- > https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --001a113c037227998e053ed99c10 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
First, non-practicing entities are definitely a problem, b= ut they're far from the only companies involved in software patent liti= gation.=C2=A0As you say yourself, one reason companies obtain patents is to= "prevent competition"=E2=80=94meaning they produce a competing p= roduct.=C2=A0Look at the billion-dollar lawsuits in the smartphone patent w= ars.=C2=A0

(Unless you'r= e referring to "patent privateers" that assert claims and are onl= y indirectly sponsored and controlled by real tech companies. I don't t= hink the Defensive Patent License directly addresses that problem=E2=80=94S= ection 7.1 defines an "affiliate" relatively narrowly=E2=80=94alt= hough the Apache 2.0 license arguably does, with its broad definition of &q= uot;Legal Entity." I don't profess to know anything about the reas= oning behind the DPL's wording, and I may be missing something; maybe a= future version of the DPL will close that loophole if it becomes an actual= problem.)

Second, as several people have noted = on this list, patent applications unfortunately seem to be more effective t= han defensive publication at getting prior art under the noses of the paten= t examiners. So obtaining a patent for defensive purposes makes it more dif= ficult for others to obtain patents on the same subject matter.

(Usual disclaimers apply. Nothing you read on bitcoin-dev is legal = advice; don't take legal advice from mailing lists; come on)
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:01 PM Nick ODell via bitcoi= n-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>= wrote:
Pledging to not use patents offensively defeats the point of owning pate= nts.
The point of owning a patent is so that you can use it offensively, either = to
prevent competition, or get licensing fees.

Obtaining a patent for defense doesn't make sense. The litigants you ne= ed to
worry about do not produce or make anything. Their 'product' is pat= ent lawsuits.

Unless you have a patent on using a mail-merge program to sue people, your<= br class=3D"gmail_msg"> defensive patents are useless in that situation.

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote= :
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 07:38:07AM -0300, Sergio Demian Lerner via bit= coin-dev wrote:
>> I read the DPL v1.1 and I find it dangerous for Bitcoin users. Cur= rent
>> users may be confident they are protected but in fact they are not= , as the
>> future generations of users can be attacked, making Bitcoin techno= logy
>> fully proprietary and less valuable.
>
> Glad to hear you're taking a conservative approach.
>
> So I assume Rootstock is going to do something stronger then, like
> Blockstream's DPL + binding patent pledge to only use patents defe= nsively?
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://= www.blockstream.com/about/patent_pledge/
>
> Because if not, the DPL is still better than the status quo.
>
>> If you read the DPL v1.1 you will see that companies that join DPL= can
>> enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join th= e DPL.
>> (http= ://defensivepatentlicense.org/content/defensive-patent-license)
>>
>> So basically most users of Bitcoin could be currently under threat= of being
>> sued by Bitcoin companies and individuals that joined DPL in the s= ame way
>> they might be under threat by the remaining companies. And even if= they
>> joined DPL, they may be asked to pay royalties for the use of the<= br class=3D"gmail_msg"> >> inventions prior joining DPL.
>>
>> DPL changes nothing for most individuals that cannot and will not = hire
>> patent attorneys to advise them on what the DPL benefits are and w= hat
>> rights they are resigning. Remember that patten attorneys fees may= be
>> prohibitive for individuals in under-developed countries.
>>
>> Also DPL is revocable by the signers (with only a 180-day notice),= so if
>> Bitcoin Core ends up using ANY DPL covered patent, the company own= ing the
>> patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties.
>
> Indeed. However, you're also free to adopt the DPL irrevocably by = additionally
> stating that you will never invoke that 180-day notice provision (or m= ore
> humorously, make it a 100 year notice period to ensure any patents exp= ire!).
>
> If you're concerned about this problem, I'd suggest that Roots= tock do exactly
> that.
>
>> Because Bitcoin user base grows all the time with new individuals,= the sole
>> existence of DPL licensed patents in Bitcoin represents a danger t= o Bitcoin
>> future almost the same as the existence of non-DPL license patents= .
>
> To be clear, modulo the revocability provision, it's a danger main= ly to those
> who are unwilling to adopt the DPL themselves, perhaps because they su= pport
> software patents.
>
>> If you're publishing all your ideas and code (public disclosur= e), you
>> cannot later go and file a patent in most of the world except the = US, where
>> you have a 1 year grace period. So we need to do something specifi= c to
>> prevent the publishers filing a US patent.
>
> Again, lets remember that you personally proposed a BIP[1] that had th= e effect
> of aiding your ASICBOOST patent[2] without disclosing that fact in you= r BIP nor
> your pull-req[3]. The simple fact is we can't rely solely on volun= tary
> disclosure - your own behavior is a perfect example of why not.
>
> [1]: BIP: https://github.c= om/BlockheaderNonce2/bitcoin/wiki
> [2]: ASICBOOST PATENT = https://www.google.com/patents/WO2015077378A1?cl=3Den
> [3]: Extra nonce pull request: = https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5102
>
>> What we need much more than DPL, we need that every BIP and propos= al to the
>> Bitcoin mailing list contains a note that grants all Bitcoin users= a
>> worldwide, royalty-free, no-charge, non-exclusive, irrevocable lic= ense for
>> the content of the e-mail or BIP.
>
> A serious problem here is the definition of "Bitcoin users".= Does Bitcoin
> Classic count? Bitcoin Unlimited? What if Bitcoin forks?
>
> Better to grant _everyone_ a irrevocable license.
>
>
> Along those lines, it'd be reasonable to consider changing the Bit= coin Core
> license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the = copyright
> license also has anti-patent protections.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists= .linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linu= xfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a113c037227998e053ed99c10--