Re: [fielding@apache.org: Review of proposed Apache License, version 2.0]
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:43:01AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> > However, this is essentially what the reciprocal patent clause is requiring.
>> > As part of the Apache license, you must agree not to sue any contributor
>> > for any of your software patents, for as long as you continue to use Apache.
>>
>> The only problem I see here is return fire: if I'm holding patents as a
>> defense strategy, I want to be able to use them to return fire if an
>> Apache contributor decides to attack me with his own patents, unrelated
>> to Apache.
>
> This is only useful if you do not have a valid defense for the problem
> already. In other words, it is only useful as a strong-arm tactic to let
> your own company effectively ignore patents of others. After all, if the
> lawsuit filed against you has no merit, you don't need a patent portfolio to
> defend against it.
>
> So, its only real purpose is to let the patent holders thwart the patent
> law. I don't like that one bit.
If the lawsuit filed against you has *no* merit, that's true. But in
practice, given the current broken state of the American patent law
system, it's much, much cheaper to countersue and work out a quick
settlement -- even if both patents on both sides are bullshit -- than
to slog through the courts.
This isn't nice, it isn't good, it isn't right -- but it isn't
Debian's fight, or Apache's, and this isn't the right way to solve it.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
Reply to: