Al Gore, the LINUX Model, and Energy Independence

[CorpGovActivist]

Now that Al Gore has taken a job with a venture capital firm that specializes in alternative energy start-up financing, it may be a good time for him to bone up on how LINUX came to be.

Employing an open standards model that encourages programmers around the world to suggest and debate code fixes and improvements, LINUX has become a remarkably stable - and profitable - operating system.

If alternative energy researchers applied the same open standards model to energy generation, incremental improvements to solar, wind, and other renewable energy devices could lead to globally-significant advances - increasing the supply of clean, non-fossil energy available.

Such a challenge to energy company patent-and-kill techniques would appeal to many idealistic young engineers at top schools around the globe.

Coupled with a legal strategy to seek eminent domain authority over "fallow intellectual property" that has already been patented and killed in the past, a LINUX-esque energy independence research model could quickly dust off some old promising technologies, and expose them to new advances and techniques.

As Citizen Gore puts on his venture capitalist hat, I hope that he adopts a strong preference for open standards proposals that follow the LINUX model.

- Dave

[mike_c]

1. how would something like that work...?

I mean, patents and copyrights are fundamentally different if I'm not mistaken. Open source licensing, the copyleft, and so on ensure that original works and derivatives remain under open licenses, but is there anything similar in the patent world? Sure, one can elect to license a patent any way one wishes, but the patent itself is by nature "closed source" in that the patent holder is never restricted from revoking that the license, and derivatives that warrant a separate patent can be licensed completely differently than derivatives of open source licenses.

Or do I have this all wrong?

[CorpGovActivist]

2. Putting It into Practice

You wrote: "I mean, patents and copyrights are fundamentally different if I'm not mistaken."

Nope, same basic protection principle for artistic vs. scientific works:

"Section 8: The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Enumerated_powers

"Open source licensing, the copyleft, and so on ensure that original works and derivatives remain under open licenses, but is there anything similar in the patent world?"

Yes, patent law makes ample provision for flexible and creative contractual arrangements, just like for a copyright.

Putting it into practice, the VC firm could require - as a precondition to funding - that any and all patent applications the recipient files include language that:

1. Gives preferential licensing rights to other recipients of the VC's current and future funding;

2. Gives preferential licensing rights based on some other criteria.

3. Establishes post-facto preferences for other inventors who proceed on the basis of the information contained in the patent filing, if they demonstrate that their derivative inventions meet certain criteria for promoting open standard energy independence.

The devil is in the details, of course, but - as a very extreme example - Gore's VC fund could include a requirement that anyone with Tipper's birthday be allowed to license every patented technology developed with the VC's funding for $1 per year. If a court would uphold that provision, it would certainly uphold a provision that spells out preferential licensing rights that - in essence - make derivative inventions zero or low-cost propositions (at least from a licensing perspective).

- Dave

[mike_c]

5. yes but....

"...same basic protection principle for artistic vs. scientific works...."

I understand that, but open source licensing protects the OPENNESS of the licensed work and all of its derivatives, not just the originator's copyright. Is there an equivalent in patent law? A patent that protects the USER'S access to technology and prevents the originator from restricting that access in the future?

For example, Joe invents a motor that runs on spit and dust, patents it, then allows anyone who wants to build and sell that motor to do so. In essence he simply chooses not to protect his patent rights, correct? Or on the other hand, I suppose he could require that users accept something like an open source license, but he could only do so by controlling every use of his patent-- not by simply releasing it into the world with an open source license. Then, if Paul realizes that Joe's motor could be considerably improved by changing the initial-- patented-- design, and the new motor is unique enough to generate a new patent, isn't Paul free to license his patent-- a derivative work-- in a completely different manner? I guess the difference I'm getting at is that under open source licenses the original work and all of its derivatives are protected from future licenses that are much more restrictive. Does patent law work the same way?

Don't get me wrong-- I completely agree with the point you're making in the OP, and my question arises from my ignorance of patent law.

[hootinholler]

9. It all boils down to how the license is written...

Both a copyrighted work and a patented invention are governed by a license. If the inventor gives license for derivative works for free, then it's open. The inventor won't make much money that way.

Open source predates Linus Torvald, and Linus wrote linux out of love of development, not for profit motives. Richard Stallman developed the GNU Public License for his GNU project, which specified that derivative works must also be under the GPL. Richard has an unorthodox view about software source. Berkley Systems Department of UC Berkley simply placed BSD Unix in the public domain without license, which gave SUN an operating system that could be bundled with their hardware making the product much cheaper.

There should be a way that a languishing patent can be captured form a corporation who is stifling it.

-Hoot

[CorpGovActivist]

16. Don't Forget HTML Origins...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html#Origins

Otherwise, we'd all be stuck with licking stamps - or worse, command line message boards.

; )

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

15. Unique Derivative Works...

... such as your example of Paul's improvement to Joe's spit and dust engine, would be patentable under existing patent law, so you raise a very good point.

But if Paul's improvement is that my house will dust itself to provide the fuel, I'm willing to pay for that.

:rofl:

; )

All kidding aside, your point is valid. The VC firm would have less control over second-generation uses and beyond under existing patent law. Just as the writers and producers of "Wicked" now have a valid copyright protection for the play that is - inarguably - based on the original Oz works, so too would inventors such as Paul enjoy valid patent protections on their second-generation inventions.

However, if Paul developed his improvement during the original life of Joe's patent, and tried to pursue the second patent without agreeing to the open standards structure for licensing his improvement, Joe could discourage that with a patent suit. On the other hand, Paul would save himself a lot of headache if he were to adopt similar open standards licensing language to continue the chain.

- Dave

[Labors of Hercules]

6. notwithstanding the new patents generated by new inventions...

discoveries or derivatives, how do you open access to original source work that is already patented without securing rights from the patent-holder?

[Occulus]

11. Couldn't it be simpler than that?

Couldn't his company state in its bylaws or some such that it will not pursue patent infringement cases? How could that be a guarantee to people doing business with his company?

Could contracts signed between his company and his customers include such a clause releasing the customer from any and all patent infringement cases, provided the customer does the same for derivative works based on his creations/products/etc? Thats' what the linux license does; the GPL requires that it be distributed if the Work is...

[lvx35]

3. A wonderful post.

And with Gore's work in facilitating the growth of the Internet, he's probably well aware of the benifits of this model.

Its also important with software itself. I was thinking earlier today that the single most important thing we could do to increase the viability of public transportation would be to have a number we could call with our cell phones that deployed voice recognition to plan routes automatically from one point to another, and took the whole planning and scheduling aspect out of using the bus. All the software to do this is already out there, but patents may make it cost prohibitive...Ideally the call/datacenter would be fully automated and run so cheap it could be supported on a city budget or with some very small charge to users that could be paid when a bus pass was purchased.

I also noticed one fundamental difference between the open mechanical engineering and open software engineering model is the high cost associated with building mechanical prototypes, which you don't have with software. It would be nice if we get get sort of an "open legos" manufacturing process going, where component technologies rely enough on open standards and are used widely enough that designing and building prototypes with them could be nice and afforable...

[dpbrown]

4. Recommended - this is the kind of practical planning I think we need

:kick:

[dogindia]

7. big Kand R

[burythehatchet]

8. brilliant

[yodermon]

10. hell, *Government* should work that way. Open Source Government.

How 'bout them apples, Al?

[Canuckistanian]

12. I've been touting this "fallow IP" idea for a long time

There ought to be a limit to patenting a technology and letting it lie dormant.

If a new technology is patentable, there should be a "statute of limitations" period where the patent is either utilized, licensed or surrendered after X amount of years.

Oh, and BTW, Dave, welcome back!

[CorpGovActivist]

14. Eminent Domain...

... can be used to take a house, a field, a back yard ...

... so why not a piece of "intellectual" property that shows no signs of life or intelligent use?

Oh, and Canuckistan? Thanks!

: )

- Dave

[Kurovski]

13. K&R. (nt)

[robcon]

17. The open-source model has been a bust...

unless you think Linux dominates the OS category, and Windows is a bust.

The best way to get people to invest time, money and ideas for new technologies is to offer financial incentives to do so.

[SpiralHawk]

18. I think Windows is a bust

Won't go near that stinking corporate compilation of misbegotten crud.

This Open Source idea on energy is worth a try -- though no doubt people with republicon-homelander mindsets will do all they can to scuttle such a notion...

[CorpGovActivist]

19. LINUX Adoption...

... has picked up significantly in recent years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption

I agree with you that the profit motive (taken to an extreme, a.k.a., "greed") is still a powerful motivator.

But reasonable profit motive + (take your pick, or combine) altruism, desire for historical recognition, ego, ecological concern ... is a more powerful motivator for many of the best and brightest.

- Dave