Subject: RE: Patent-based dual-licensing open source business model
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:25:36 -0700

 Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:25:36 -0700
Forrest Cavalier wrote:
> I agree that the legal burden is on the patent holder.  But why write as
> if that
> were the only burden? The FINANCIAL burden of resolving any dispute is on
> both
> parties, who pass it on to society as a whole via higher costs and lost
> opportunities.  Business analysis is about cost and benefit, not legal
> proof.
> 
> The financial burden of avoiding all such disputes is infinite: it just is
> not
> possible to avoid all disputes.  The common wisdom is that ALL software
> infringes some patent.  Patent holders can allege against anyone.  It is
> better
> to wait for their letter, than to try to predict who is going to send you
> one.

Which is why International Characters:

* Seeks only valid claims by participating in Community Patent Review. You
will have reason to believe that any of our patent claims that survive are
likely to be valid ones. There will be less money wasted litigating the
validity of patent claims.

* Will publicize our inventions and inform likely implementers of our
Covenant and of the availability of commercial licenses. There will be no
attempt whatsoever to hide and ambush anyone.

At the end of that process you will be able to predict with some likely
accuracy whether you infringe our patent claims. 

I note with great interest that IBM today has taken a similar position with
its very much larger patent portfolio:

TECHNOLOGY † | September 26, 2006 

Hoping to Be a Model, I.B.M. Will Put Its Patent Filings Online 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/technology/26patent.html?ex=1159934400&en=
c3eb8a2bc7f7a219&ei=5070&emc=eta1    

By STEVE LOHR 

I.B.M., the nationís largest patent holder, will publish its patent filings
on the Web for public review as part of a new policy.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forrest J. Cavalier III [mailto:forrest@mibsoftware.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:43 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com; 'Free Software for Business'
> Cc: mbeinschlag@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: Re: Patent-based dual-licensing open source business model
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> 
> > The legal burden is initially on the patent owner to prove infringement.
> 
> Larry, you know that today talk of "legal burden" is just red-herring.
> 
> I agree that the legal burden is on the patent holder.  But why write as
> if that
> were the only burden? The FINANCIAL burden of resolving any dispute is on
> both
> parties, who pass it on to society as a whole via higher costs and lost
> opportunities.  Business analysis is about cost and benefit, not legal
> proof.
> 
> The financial burden of avoiding all such disputes is infinite: it just is
> not
> possible to avoid all disputes.  The common wisdom is that ALL software
> infringes some patent.  Patent holders can allege against anyone.  It is
> better
> to wait for their letter, than to try to predict who is going to send you
> one.