1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1WmPBi-0000Gv-65
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 May 2014 15:09:14 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.171; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com ([209.85.214.171])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WmPBg-0006eQ-IA
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 May 2014 15:09:14 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id wn1so6326165obc.30
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 19 May 2014 08:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.42.144 with SMTP id o16mr29766025oel.47.1400512147129;
Mon, 19 May 2014 08:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Mon, 19 May 2014 08:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140519144709.GA29574@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <BAY173-W1475F72C70BC089A82C20FCC300@phx.gbl>
<5377892C.8080402@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgS-Ewj3T0-d=h7ET9dCz3+NPPYVOLDWd7T7oYY95x-sUA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALDj+Bbsb6JiLabTBx21k02dDvnmZZDCXmJ2mnh7DngBon202w@mail.gmail.com>
<5379FF38.4050909@certimix.com>
<20140519144709.GA29574@netbook.cypherspace.org>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 17:09:07 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9IZh4ykIuD9_YdjRTcXbj5n2bIs
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3sDh3Q9T0xFi7maNQR9Z6R7gQ6vT5kjchcMkD0hMHOdw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2063a088ae004f9c225cd
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WmPBg-0006eQ-IA
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] patents...
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 15:09:14 -0000
--001a11c2063a088ae004f9c225cd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
IMO this list is fine for discussing such topics.
Here are some thoughts. I had to deal with patents at Google (my name is on
a few, not my choice unfortunately). Many aspects of patent law are deeply
unintuitive, so here's the crash course as I was given it.
The first rule of patents is *you do not go looking for patents*. US law is
written in a really stupid way, such that if you knowingly infringe,
damages triple. Because America uses the patent office as a revenue source,
basically everything you can possibly imagine is covered by some ridiculous
patent so if you go looking you will always find applicable patents on
every idea and then you end up potentially much worse off.
Most companies (Google certainly included) have therefore banned their
staff from reading patents, thus ensuring that the whole point of them, the
sharing of knowledge, doesn't actually function! And it's much better I
think if we follow the same policy. So *please do not ever mention that
suchandsuch is patented on this list*! When it comes to patent law,
ignorance is bliss. Patents are written in a heavily obfuscated manner such
that actually trying to learn from them is hard work anyway.
One reason I wrote up the contracts stuff when I did is to get it out there
into the public domain, so people couldn't patent the basics of the Bitcoin
protocol. It'll be much better for everyone if new ideas are just put right
out into the public domain. *Please do not patent Bitcoin related research
you do*, even if you think it's for the best:
1) Defensive patenting doesn't work. The whole idea was mutually assured
destruction, you hit me I'll hit you type of logic, but the prevalence of
shell/troll companies killed off that idea. Plus it turns out that big
companies are quite willing to sue each other into oblivion anyway. Once a
patent exists, it'll be used as a weapon by someone eventually, and
attempting to "fight back" is probably not a workable strategy. Far better
to ensure the material is simply unpatentable by anyone.
2) Patenting with the intention to sue people using Bitcoin in the same
way: well, if you plan to do this, there's not much to talk about .... you
won't make any friends this way.
--001a11c2063a088ae004f9c225cd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">IMO this list is fine for discussing such topics.<div><br>=
</div><div>Here are some thoughts. I had to deal with patents at Google (my=
name is on a few, not my choice unfortunately). Many aspects of patent law=
are deeply unintuitive, so here's the crash course as I was given it.<=
/div>
<div><br></div><div><br><div><div><br></div><div>The first rule of patents =
is <b>you do not go looking for patents</b>. US law is written in a really =
stupid way, such that if you knowingly infringe, damages triple. Because Am=
erica uses the patent office as a revenue source, basically everything you =
can possibly imagine is covered by some ridiculous patent so if you go look=
ing you will always find applicable patents on every idea and then you end =
up potentially much worse off.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Most companies (Google certainly included) have therefo=
re banned their staff from reading patents, thus ensuring that the whole po=
int of them, the sharing of knowledge, doesn't actually function! And i=
t's much better I think if we follow the same policy. So <b>please do n=
ot ever mention that suchandsuch is patented on this list</b>! When it come=
s to patent law, ignorance is bliss. Patents are written in a heavily obfus=
cated manner such that actually trying to learn from them is hard work anyw=
ay.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>One reason I wrote up the contracts stuf=
f when I did is to get it out there into the public domain, so people could=
n't patent the basics of the Bitcoin protocol. It'll be much better=
for everyone if new ideas are just put right out into the public domain. <=
b>Please do not patent Bitcoin related research you do</b>, even if you thi=
nk it's for the best:</div>
<div><br></div><div>1) Defensive patenting doesn't work. The whole idea=
was mutually assured destruction, you hit me I'll hit you type of logi=
c, but the prevalence of shell/troll companies killed off that idea. Plus i=
t turns out that big companies are quite willing to sue each other into obl=
ivion anyway. Once a patent exists, it'll be used as a weapon by someon=
e eventually, and attempting to "fight back" is probably not a wo=
rkable strategy. Far better to ensure the material is simply unpatentable b=
y anyone.</div>
</div></div><div><br></div><div>2) Patenting with the intention to sue peop=
le using Bitcoin in the same way: well, if you plan to do this, there's=
not much to talk about .... you won't make any friends this way.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>
--001a11c2063a088ae004f9c225cd--
|
