#patenttrolls — Public Fediverse posts

Thousands Tell The Patent Office: Don’t Hide Bad Patents From Review

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/18/thousands-tell-the-patent-office-dont-hide-bad-patents-from-review/

Our Founders Would Abhor What The USPTO Is Doing With The Patent System

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.techdirt.com/2025/12/02/our-founders-would-abhor-what-the-uspto-is-doing-with-the-patent-system/

Secret Third-Party Litigation Funding Threatens American Innovation

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/26/secret-third-party-litigation-funding-threatens-american-innovation/

USPTO Wants To Make Bad Patents Unchallengeable. You Have Until December 2nd To Tell Them No.

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.techdirt.com/2025/11/25/uspto-wants-to-make-bad-patents-unchallengeable-you-have-until-december-2nd-to-tell-them-no/

PERA Remains A Serious Threat To Efforts Against Bad Patents

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/20/pera-remains-a-serious-threat-to-efforts-against-bad-patents/

"As all things old are new again, a bill that would make obtaining bad patents easier and harder to challenge is being considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) would reverse over a decade of progress in fighting patent trolls and making the patent system more balanced.

PERA would overturn long-standing court decisions that have helped keep some of the most problematic patents in check. This includes the Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision, which bars patents on abstract ideas. While Alice has not completely solved the problems of the patent system or patent trolling, it has led to the rejection of hundreds of low-quality software patents and, as a result, has allowed innovation and small businesses to grow."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/pera-remains-serious-threat-efforts-against-bad-patents

#USA #Patents #PERA #IP #IntellectualMonopolies #PatentTrolls

New USPTO Memo Makes Fighting Patent Trolls Even Harder

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/new-uspto-memo-makes-fighting-patent-trolls-even-harder

#HackerNews #PatentTrolls #USPTO #Memo #IntellectualProperty #PatentReform #LegalChallenges

"Cloud Native Heroes Challenge" ... that was one of my highlights of today's keynotes at #KubeCon in #SaltLakeCity.

I didn't realize the extent of the problems that patent trolls cause even for pure #OSS foundations like the #CNCF (in 2023 they had to fend off more than 900 false claims).

So it makes a lot of sense to ask the community for help in proving the existence of prior art against patent claims from #PatentTrolls. But have a look yourself:

https://cncf.io/heroes

#HeroesChallenge

Crypto group COPA launches bid to stop blockchain ‘patent trolls’ - The Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance has launched a campaign targetin... - https://cointelegraph.com/news/copa-launch-campaign-fight-blockchain-patent-trolls #patenthoarders #patenttrolls #blockchain #patent #crypto #copa

Crypto group COPA launches bid to stop blockchain ‘patent trolls’ - The Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance has launched a campaign targetin... - https://cointelegraph.com/news/copa-launch-campaign-fight-blockchain-patent-trolls #patenthoarders #patenttrolls #blockchain #patent #crypto #copa

Crypto group COPA launches bid to stop blockchain ‘patent trolls’ - The Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance has launched a campaign targetin... - https://cointelegraph.com/news/copa-launch-campaign-fight-blockchain-patent-trolls #patenthoarders #patenttrolls #blockchain #patent #crypto #copa

Crypto group COPA launches bid to stop blockchain ‘patent trolls’ - The Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance has launched a campaign targetin... - https://cointelegraph.com/news/copa-launch-campaign-fight-blockchain-patent-trolls #patenthoarders #patenttrolls #blockchain #patent #crypto #copa

Have the open source and open data communities, including organizations like the @eff, @creativecommons, or the @fsf, given any thought yet to updating various #FOSS and other licenses to address the current #SaaS problem of code or data that isn't necessarily being "redistributed," allowing these companies to dodge the obligation to contribute changes back upstream? How about the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the #GPLv3 and #FDL, #CreativeCommons licenses, and other open-license content that is often scooped up regardless of licensing into #AI #datasets that are then put behind #paywalls?

To me, this seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to the evolution of #GPLv2 to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting licensed code, writing, or other data into a walled garden where even the original contributors that they rely on are charged for access.

I'm not anti-business. If these companies were at least making the data sets freely available, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making value-added profit off of properly-licensed data, although examples like CC-BY-NC 4.0 are a notable exception that should also be considered. Companies like Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and others have been making money legally off of open source software for decades.

Just because the label "AI" is slapped on something doesn't mean that companies should be allowed to ignore copyrights or licensing terms. If they want to do that, and licensing or requiring free access to open-content data can't prevent this land-grab, perhaps its time we collectively revisit the whole framework around #intellectualproperty that currently allows corporations like #Disney and uncountable #PatentTrolls to create ever-expanding assertions of property rights that prevent almost any material from entering the public domain within a single human lifetime.

Have the open source and open data communities, including organizations like the @eff, @creativecommons, or the @fsf, given any thought yet to updating various #FOSS and other licenses to address the current #SaaS problem of code or data that isn't necessarily being "redistributed," allowing these companies to dodge the obligation to contribute changes back upstream? How about the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the #GPLv3 and #FDL, #CreativeCommons licenses, and other open-license content that is often scooped up regardless of licensing into #AI #datasets that are then put behind #paywalls?

To me, this seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to the evolution of #GPLv2 to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting licensed code, writing, or other data into a walled garden where even the original contributors that they rely on are charged for access.

I'm not anti-business. If these companies were at least making the data sets freely available, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making value-added profit off of properly-licensed data, although examples like CC-BY-NC 4.0 are a notable exception that should also be considered. Companies like Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and others have been making money legally off of open source software for decades.

Just because the label "AI" is slapped on something doesn't mean that companies should be allowed to ignore copyrights or licensing terms. If they want to do that, and licensing or requiring free access to open-content data can't prevent this land-grab, perhaps its time we collectively revisit the whole framework around #intellectualproperty that currently allows corporations like #Disney and uncountable #PatentTrolls to create ever-expanding assertions of property rights that prevent almost any material from entering the public domain within a single human lifetime.

Have the open source and open data communities, including organizations like the @eff, @creativecommons, or the @fsf, given any thought yet to updating various #FOSS and other licenses to address the current #SaaS problem of code or data that isn't necessarily being "redistributed," allowing these companies to dodge the obligation to contribute changes back upstream? How about the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the #GPLv3 and #FDL, #CreativeCommons licenses, and other open-license content that is often scooped up regardless of licensing into #AI #datasets that are then put behind #paywalls?

To me, this seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to the evolution of #GPLv2 to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting licensed code, writing, or other data into a walled garden where even the original contributors that they rely on are charged for access.

I'm not anti-business. If these companies were at least making the data sets freely available, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making value-added profit off of properly-licensed data, although examples like CC-BY-NC 4.0 are a notable exception that should also be considered. Companies like Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and others have been making money legally off of open source software for decades.

Just because the label "AI" is slapped on something doesn't mean that companies should be allowed to ignore copyrights or licensing terms. If they want to do that, and licensing or requiring free access to open-content data can't prevent this land-grab, perhaps its time we collectively revisit the whole framework around #intellectualproperty that currently allows corporations like #Disney and uncountable #PatentTrolls to create ever-expanding assertions of property rights that prevent almost any material from entering the public domain within a single human lifetime.

Have the open source and open data communities, including organizations like the @eff, @creativecommons, or the @fsf, given any thought yet to updating various #FOSS and other licenses to address the current #SaaS problem of code or data that isn't necessarily being "redistributed," allowing these companies to dodge the obligation to contribute changes back upstream? How about the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the #GPLv3 and #FDL, #CreativeCommons licenses, and other open-license content that is often scooped up regardless of licensing into #AI #datasets that are then put behind #paywalls?

To me, this seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to the evolution of #GPLv2 to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting licensed code, writing, or other data into a walled garden where even the original contributors that they rely on are charged for access.

I'm not anti-business. If these companies were at least making the data sets freely available, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making value-added profit off of properly-licensed data, although examples like CC-BY-NC 4.0 are a notable exception that should also be considered. Companies like Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and others have been making money legally off of open source software for decades.

Just because the label "AI" is slapped on something doesn't mean that companies should be allowed to ignore copyrights or licensing terms. If they want to do that, and licensing or requiring free access to open-content data can't prevent this land-grab, perhaps its time we collectively revisit the whole framework around #intellectualproperty that currently allows corporations like #Disney and uncountable #PatentTrolls to create ever-expanding assertions of property rights that prevent almost any material from entering the public domain within a single human lifetime.

Have the open source and open data communities, including organizations like the @eff, @creativecommons, or the @fsf, given any thought yet to updating various #FOSS and other licenses to address the current #SaaS problem of code or data that isn't necessarily being "redistributed," allowing these companies to dodge the obligation to contribute changes back upstream? How about the privatization and unauthorized commercialization of material licensed under the #GPLv3 and #FDL, #CreativeCommons licenses, and other open-license content that is often scooped up regardless of licensing into #AI #datasets that are then put behind #paywalls?

To me, this seems very similar to the #Tivoization problem that led to the evolution of #GPLv2 to #GPLv3. It seems wrong that #OpenAI or #GitHub_Copilot can profit by putting licensed code, writing, or other data into a walled garden where even the original contributors that they rely on are charged for access.

I'm not anti-business. If these companies were at least making the data sets freely available, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with making value-added profit off of properly-licensed data, although examples like CC-BY-NC 4.0 are a notable exception that should also be considered. Companies like Canonical, Red Hat, IBM, and others have been making money legally off of open source software for decades.

Just because the label "AI" is slapped on something doesn't mean that companies should be allowed to ignore copyrights or licensing terms. If they want to do that, and licensing or requiring free access to open-content data can't prevent this land-grab, perhaps its time we collectively revisit the whole framework around #intellectualproperty that currently allows corporations like #Disney and uncountable #PatentTrolls to create ever-expanding assertions of property rights that prevent almost any material from entering the public domain within a single human lifetime.

This Bill Would Revive The Worst #Patents On #Software—And Human #Genes 
Some politicians are proposing to make the current bad situation worse. Rather than taking the problem of patent trolling seriously, they want to encourage more bad patents, and make life easier—and more profitable—for worst patent abusers. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, #S2140, would be a huge gift to #patenttrolls. If #PERA passes, would allow normal human genes to be patented once again.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/bill-would-boost-worst-patents-software-and-human-genes