‘Let your customers infringe trolls’ patents’
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- 
“im a ‘dont know’,” says p2pnet technical editor surfer.
His words come in a comment post to Crosbie Fitch’s thoughts on the demise of newspapers (but not reporters 
).
In it, “Newspapers are elephants in a desert of their own making, desperately wandering from watering hole to watering hole, but the revenue flowing from each tributary of their 18th century monopoly on the sale of copies is drying up,” says Crosbie, adding:
“Neither fencing off the copies nor reinforcing the monopoly will help. Their business model faces absolute drought. So they collect, not to commit suicide, but to assemble their graveyard.
“Our own technology reveals the fundamental natural law governing information and intellectual work. The age of commercial privilege is ending. Natural rights must resume.”
Says surfer »»»
i think there are three kinds of people, those that know about copyrights true intentions (Robert, Henri, Crosby, [and I have to include here the MAFIAA thug lawyers, otherwise they would not be fighting so hard for their extensions, blah] ), sheeple that only know what is brainwashed into them by similiar fecal material as the lawyers, big $ et al.., and the dont knows.
im a degreed software engineer of over 20 yrs and 8 languages, capable of being an `expert witness` in any of these RIAA circus acts currently in the court system, and not an artist.
however, the other day, i was talking to a collegue and he suggested that i patent a particular software package i `shrink-wrapped` years ago. i found a copy laying around and thought mebbe i should update its version with a re-write and put it back on the market. patent it? never thought of that.. i continued the conversation that in during the diligence, i only found another minor player in usa that had a similiar idea, and there would still be demand for this software i designed. even if there was another package like mine, it would be good competition to make mine better.
then i realized, i was an artist, and all the articles on ars, /., techdirt and here reminded me of patent trolls, copyright propoganda, ad nauseum.
so, if i patent the `idea`, which im sure is easy as fuck to do, then i can lock out innovation entirely, and everyone would be at my whim when i felt like upgrading my software. for the price i demanded, gee, that sounded all too familiar even if I DIDNT, someone else could, and then force mine off the market.., if only for protecting my right to offer a better software package for a reasonable fee i HAVE to patent it. thats fucked up when a system is so screwed, you HAVE to play their way, or not be allowed into the game at all.
it really hits home hard when the realizations of how fucked up the patent and copyright system is in its current state, lemme tell ya.
love your articles Crosbie.
Me too. 
“Thanks,” says Crosbie, going on »»»
NB The best thing to do with respect to patents is to publish your patentable work in order to establish it as prior art, i.e. unless some blighter has already patented it. This helps defend yourself should you ever have a thriving business based upon your ideas (or those you assumed were ancient or unpatentable).
Unfortunately, patent battles are not really won based on merit but on size of litigation budget.
I suggest the alternative strategy to hiring lawyers (or building up a patent portfolio) is to ensure you are always so nimble you can dodge any patent claim levelled against you.
Other techniques are also available, Crosbie points out, such as —-
—- “enabling your customers to infringe any patents where you cannot”.
It’s, “difficult for trolls to prosecute a million users,” he 0bserves.
Nice one.
Jon
June, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Patents have a cost to file. Instead, one can opt to file a “defensive publication” or “defensive disclosure”
June 8th, 2009 at 12:34 am
lets actually discuss this word infringe a bit here.
it skinda like INVADE, the fact is that once again we are left with the fact we are NOT invading your rights. WE have given you as society the rights. SO perhaps the words should be , LET society stop you form INFRINGING THERE RIGHTS TO KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNOLOGY.
You take too much form society it will rebel. You take too many rights they rebel, you take freedom and they RIOT.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Publication is a nice idea… but the one downside is that the publication has to be somewhere that the courts would accept as evidence. E.g., posting it on a blog probably wouldn’t help much. Of course, IANAL. But it seems to me that if your publication can change its date on a whim (e.g., by modifying the database) could be easily countered by claiming that the date *was*, in fact, modified (a forged prior art).
It’s not so easy to claim that a printed book’s date is wrong. But it’s also more expensive to publish that way.
I wish there was a good spot to publish ideas instead of patenting them, so that it’s all dated and yet not patented, and could be used as evidence of prior art in court. Unfortunately, I must admit (sadly) that an open model like a wiki or forum, no matter how well-intentioned, would be subject to the counterargument I just mentioned.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I am still confused with this ‘publish prior art’ that Crosbie Finch mentions. Does this apply to the older version of the software I created? Does this qualify as defenseable against future patent trolls?