Брюс Перенс против патентной инициативы Линуса.

Статья:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/12/perens_patent_pool/

Также приведу весьма информативный комментарий со слэшдота.

THE ARGUMENT ---

There are two main types of possible patent agression: 1) from patent
trolls and 2) from big companies with lots of software as well as lots
of software patents. Let's see how our new patent pool does against
each of them.

Case 1:

PATENT TROLL: Your software violates my patent on the letter 'g'. Pay
me $40,000,000 to go away.

LINUS: Your software violates several thousand patents in *our* patent
arsenal.

PATENT TROLL: I don't own any software; all I have is this portfolio
of groundbreaking, original patents. Pony up.

Now *nobody's* patent pool is useful in case 1 (unless it just happens
to contain prior art on the troll's patent). Patent pools are
generally for use in case 2.

Case 2:

MICROSOFT: Your software violates 42,000 of our finest patents. Go to
jail.

LINUS: Your software violates several thousand patents in *our* patent
arsenal.

MICROSOFT: Oh, that's too bad. Would those be the patents loaned to
you by other major software companies? The same major software
companies who have given us an unlimited, perpetual license to use all
their software patents in exchange for a similar license from us? Yes?
Gosh, now I'm scared.

So if the Linux patent pool is no use in case 1, and no use in case 2,
it's no use at all, correct?

THE POINT ---

Now I don't really know how correct Bruce Perens' position is,
although on the face of it it does seem highly reasonable. What I do
know is that whether you think Bruce Perens suX0r, or whether he
founds too many nonprofits, or whether or not he could defeat the
fscking Green Lantern, is *completely* *irrelevant* to the actual
question, which is really pretty damned important. So: can we talk
about the *actual* *issue* now, and not whether we like Bruce Perens?