Another patent misconception, from what I understand, is that an unenforced patent becomes invalid. It is said that PKP is "forced" to go after PGP because if they don't their patent will lose its force. Several days ago Tom Morrow on the Extropians list said that this doctrine applies to trademarks but not to patents. Patents have a fixed 17 year lifetime and failure to enforce against one user does not preclude the patent owner from enforcing against another. The folklore about the loss of intellectual property rights that we are all familiar with (aspirin, zippers, etc.) are all cases of trademark losses. Tom is a law student, not a lawyer; also, I am a few days behind on my Extropians reading so I don't know whether any follow-ups or corrections were posted since his message. But this principle seems to be in accordance with what was posted here about selective enforcement of patents. If this is in fact how patents behave, it is one less justification for PKP's heavy-handed enforcement efforts against PGP. It means that PKP could choose not to enforce against PGP (or any other freeware program) without losing any rights to enforce against others. It would be interesting to hear an authoritative opinion on this from a lawyer. Hal
It means that PKP could choose not to enforce against PGP (or any other freeware program) without losing any rights to enforce against others.
This is correct as stated. I don't think that loss of patent is a motivation, though, for the suppression of PGP. I think it is perceived to cut into licensing revenues. PKP is a partnership of MIT, Stanford, RSADSI, and Cylink. Those first two academic institutions are out to make money, plain and simple, from their patent portfolio. They are large corporations and behave like such. The other two companies are smaller and are more accessible, but also have investors and a default requirement to make money for their shareholders. Any lobbying for better licensing practice needs to extend beyond just Jim Bidzos to the owners of all these companies. I presume that Stanford and MIT both have patent licensing offices, and that each also has a representative assigned to a particular patent account. It would be extremely beneficial to know the names of these people. They may be able to speak publicly where PKP is bound by confidentiality agreements; PKP, remember, is in a subordinate position with respect to its owners. List of principals and investors in RSADSI and Cylink would also be useful. Eric
participants (2)
-
Eric Hughes -
Hal