[David Ascher Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:33:14PM -0800]

Christian Tismer wrote:

...

David Ascher wrote:

...

I'd like to suggest that the issue of intellectual property and license be tackled _very_ early. Anything else is inexcusable IMO =).

David? Whom are you afraid of? Not me, I hope!

I'm afraid of no one -- I'm afraid of lazyness which makes early non-decisions hard to reverse. Some projects would like to change their license, for example, but can't because the IP assignment is so complicated.

...

...

Proposal: - all of the minipy IP is assigned to the PSF. - the license is either the PSF license or the Academic Free License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/academic.php. (the advangate of the AFL is the patent protection, which I suspect may be relevant in this particular implementation).

Hmm. Or do you believe this project can be so *very* successful that we should be afraid of larger companies, who might 'see sharp' upon us. ;-)

I just think defensive patent strategies should be thought about. It's ok, as long as the PSF has copyright, the PSF could always change the license on later releases if it saw fit.

Could you give a small example scenario? What could the PSF do if Microsoft and Sun each claim that the project makes illegal use of some 1000 patents? Isn't it a very bad idea to transfer "IP" to an american institution? Sorry, but the States seem to take the lead in ridicoulous Patent and Copyright law with Europe following closely. holger

|> What could the PSF do if Microsoft and Sun each claim that the |>project makes illegal use of some 1000 patents? |> the States seem to take the lead in ridicoulous Patent and Copyright |>law with Europe following closely. |Good point. America's IP rights suck. (Who saind DMCA..) And problems |shouldn't be underestimated.. I don't know if the Europen IP rights will |get that bad. Isn't there any organization outside of the USA who can get |the IP ? I doubt it would make any difference where the rights-holding organization is. I agree strongly that USAian IP laws are ghastly awful, and gratuitous IP lawsuits rampants. And Europe isn't as good as it should be either. But if big corporations decide they want to kill MiniPy with patents, they'll fish for a jurisdiction they like. Even if a Cuban organization officially holds the code[*], the project will be distributed to USAian and European users, mirrored or hosted on servers in those places, perhaps sold with books and CDs, and so on. Those connections are plenty for the bad guys to gain jurisdiction. Or at least to argue it to death. Yours, David... [*] Cuba, whatever negative press it gets in the USA, has an enormously sensible IP legal framework. No gene patents, disallowing drug patents to hinder treatment, broad fair use of copyright, etc. Probably better than just about any other country, if you like freedom. -- Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.

At 10:00 2003-01-13 -0800, David Ascher wrote:

holger krekel wrote:

...

Could you give a small example scenario? What could the PSF do if Microsoft and Sun each claim that the project makes illegal use of some 1000 patents?

The point of the patent clause in the ASF is that it's a mutual defense clause. Various projects can defend against each other, thereby (theoretically) making attacks against each project a tad less likely. The more key projects use it, the stronger everyone's defense is. It's better than nothing as a patent defense, even though it's hardly the end-all and be-all.

...

Isn't it a very bad idea to transfer "IP" to an american institution? Sorry, but the States seem to take the lead in ridicoulous Patent and Copyright law with Europe following closely.

Do you have any better ideas? I don't disagree w/ the state of Patent and Copyright law, but I'm fresh out of alternatives.

Can a copyright notice forbid patenting of the expressed ideas, assuming it's the first public expression? And if something is published today, is it prior art invalidating claims of a patent application filed tomorrow? Just wondering what defense can be exercised through copyright. IANAL ;-) Regards, Bengt Richter

--On Monday, January 13, 2003 10:36:30 -0800 David Ascher <DavidA@ActiveState.com> wrote:

Bengt Richter wrote:

...

Can a copyright notice forbid patenting of the expressed ideas, assuming it's the first public expression?

I doubt it.

So long as you publish before the patent priority date, you have made the patent invalid just by publishing it at all. But see below. If the publication date was while the patent was being examined but before the patent was public, it's possible there may be a case for a challenge, but if after the patent was granted or published, whichever comes first, you're out of luck.

...

Just wondering what defense can be exercised through copyright. IANAL ;-)

A _copyright_ is a statement of ownership. The _license_ is where you can put whatever terms you want.

...

And if something is published today, is it prior art invalidating claims of a patent application filed tomorrow?

Yes, in theory, but you may have to challenge a patent in court post-hoc to make that point.

You *will* have to challenge, but the process is first to apply to the patent office to have it struck off, which is far cheaper than a court case. The grounds for the challenge is that the patent applicant should have disclosed the prior expression of the idea, hence the date rules. Andrew