Subject: Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:31:17 -0700

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net> writes:
>>>>>>             
>
>     Thomas> In all of those seemingly most-common cases,
>
> I know what the cases you're talking about are; it's the "seemingly"
> I'm questioning.  What I'm asking for is some damn lies, er,
> statistics. :-)
>   

What can I say, other than I want them too.

In defense of my rhetoric, I'm responding to positions
that categorically reject software patents based on a priori
and anecdotal reasoning -- so my anecdotes are responsive
to those.   But, duh -- I can't *prove* the value of software
patents or even the nature of the existing problems in this
mode.  You're absolutely right.

>     Thomas> Towards the end of the term of the patent, when SSL became
>     Thomas> important for browsers and eCommerce, there is a *chance*
>
> IIRC with one year to go Netscrap signed a three-year license.
>
>   

More clearly, the price went up 50% in year T-2 and another
100% in year T-1.   Given the impending transition to
public domain and the time it takes to establish a de facto
standard, that sounds like a pretty fair deal.    Especially
given that a GPL program able to make a special exception
could have simultaneously begun practicing the patent
non-commercially -- practicing it privately even without
the special exception.

-t