Published on: 2016-10-15T10:01:32+00:00
In an email conversation on the bitcoin-dev list, Daniel Robinson and Tom Zander discussed the potential advantages of the Defensive Patent License (DPL) over unilateral patent disarmament. Zander pointed out that the DPL could be more effective than MIT/BSD licenses because it creates an incentive for other companies to adopt it as well. This is important because MIT/BSD licenses allow companies to take without giving back, which doesn't build a community. Copyleft allows people to embrace and take, but if they extend they have to give back.The discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list has centered around the role of patents in the technology industry. While non-practicing entities are a known issue, companies also obtain patents to prevent competition and produce competing products. Obtaining a patent for defensive purposes can make it difficult for others to obtain patents on the same subject matter. However, several people have noted that patent applications are more effective than defensive publication at getting prior art under the noses of patent examiners.One user argues that pledging not to use patents offensively defeats the point of owning patents, which is to use them offensively either to prevent competition or get licensing fees. Defensive patents are useless against litigants who do not produce or make anything and whose "product" is patent lawsuits. Another user expresses concern about the Defensive Patent License (DPL) v1.1 and how it may pose a threat to Bitcoin users. Companies that join the DPL can enforce their patents against anyone who has chosen not to join, meaning most individuals cannot and will not hire patent attorneys to advise them on what benefits they are resigning. The DPL is revocable by the signers, so if Bitcoin Core ends up using any DPL-covered patent, the company owning the patent can later force all new Bitcoin users to pay royalties.A solution proposed by one user is to grant everyone an irrevocable license for the content of emails or BIPs. However, there is a problem with defining "Bitcoin users," as different forks and versions of Bitcoin may exist. Another suggestion is to change the Bitcoin Core license to an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license to ensure the copyright license also has anti-patent protections. The discussion highlights the complex issue of patents in the technology industry and the need for careful consideration when obtaining and utilizing them.The context of the conversation is related to a proposal made by an individual for a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) that had the effect of benefiting their ASICBOOST patent without disclosing it. The individual denies the accusation and explains that the BIP actually protects the network from stealth Shared-Nonce mining. The rejection of the BIP has made the Bitcoin network less secure, as it is unclear to what extent the mining method is in use. The ASICBOOST patent, according to the individual, protects Bitcoiners from mining centralization, and they have no control over the company that owns the technology. The individual proposes a community crowdfund to license the technology and put it into the public domain.The email thread discusses the potential advantage of a dedicated Bitcoin-related defensive patent pool, similar to Linux's Open Invention Network. The idea is to strategically deploy patent licenses to encourage cooperation and punish aggressors. Additionally, it is suggested that changing the Bitcoin Core license to something like Apache2/LGPL3 dual license could ensure the copyright license also has anti-patent protections. The use of Apache2.0 license for new releases and contributions can be feasible, while already-existing code and previous releases will remain under the MIT license. The discussion also highlights the benefits of using Apache2.0 license, which contains an explicit patent license grant and terminates that license if the licensee asserts a claim alleging that the covered work infringes a patent.The Defensive Patent License (DPL) has been criticized for being dangerous for Bitcoin users, as it allows companies that join DPL to enforce their patents against anyone who has not joined. Furthermore, the license is revocable by signers, which could lead to new Bitcoin users being forced to pay royalties. However, a dedicated Bitcoin-related defensive patent pool, similar to Linux's Open Invention Network, could strategically deploy patent licenses to incentivize cooperation and punish aggressors. Additionally, changing the Bitcoin Core license to something like an Apache2/LGPL3 dual license could ensure the copyright license also has anti-patent protections. The Apache 2.0 license contains an explicit patent license grant and terminates that license if the licensee asserts a claim alleging that the covered work infringes a patent. This might be an effective deterrent against bringing patent claims based on alleged infringement in Bitcoin Core. Upgrading to the Apache license for new releases and contributions would be feasible, leaving already-existing code and previous releases under the MIT license (a copyright "soft-fork").In a Bitcoin development discussion, Sergio Demian Lerner expressed his concerns about the Defensive Patent License (DPL) v1.1.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T19:09:56.073302+00:00