专利承诺

Paul Graham 2011-08-01

专利承诺

2011年8月

我最近意识到,我们也许能够解决专利问题的一部分,而无需等待政府。

我从来没有100%确定专利是帮助还是阻碍技术进步。当我还是个孩子的时候,我认为它们有帮助。我认为它们保护发明人免于被大公司窃取想法。也许在过去,当更多东西是物理的时候,这更真实。但无论专利总体上是否是好事,似乎确实有使用它们的坏方式。而且由于专利的坏用途似乎在增加,对专利改革的呼吁也在增加。

专利改革的问题在于它必须通过政府。那往往很慢。但最近我意识到我们也可以在下游攻击问题。除了在专利发布时掐断专利流外,在某些情况下,我们也许能够在它们被使用时掐断它。

使用专利的一种明显不鼓励创新的方式是,当拥有糟糕产品的老牌公司使用专利来压制拥有好产品的小竞争对手时。这种滥用类型我们也许能够减少,而无需通过政府。

这样做的方法是让那些不屑于玩这种把戏的公司公开承诺不这样做。然后,那些不会做出这种承诺的公司将非常显眼。潜在员工不会想为他们工作。投资者也将能够看到他们是那种通过诉讼而不是通过制造好产品来竞争的公司。

承诺如下:不首先使用软件专利针对少于25人的公司。

我故意为了简洁而牺牲了精确性。专利承诺没有法律约束力。它就像谷歌的”不作恶”。他们没有定义什么是邪恶,但通过公开这样说,他们说自己愿意被一个标准约束,比如奥驰亚就不是。虽然有限制,但”不作恶”对谷歌有好处。技术公司通过吸引最有生产力的人来获胜,而最有生产力的人被那些对自己要求高于法律要求的雇主所吸引。[1]

专利承诺实际上是一个更狭窄但开源的”不作恶”。我鼓励每家技术公司采用它。如果你想帮助修复专利问题,鼓励你的雇主采用。

大多数技术公司已经不会降低到对创业公司使用专利。你没有看到谷歌或Facebook因专利侵权而起诉创业公司。他们不需要。所以对于更好的技术公司,专利承诺不需要改变行为。他们只是承诺做他们无论如何都会做的事情。当所有不会对创业公司使用专利的公司都这样说了,坚持者将非常显眼。

专利承诺不能解决专利的每一个问题。例如,它不会阻止专利流氓;他们已经是被排斥者。但专利承诺确实解决的问题可能比专利流氓的问题更严重。专利流氓只是寄生虫。笨拙的寄生虫偶尔可能会杀死宿主,但这不是它的目标。而因专利侵权而起诉创业公司的公司通常这样做,明确的目标是让他们的产品远离市场。

对创业公司使用专利的公司是在根本上攻击创新。现在任何人都可以对这个问题做一些事情,而无需等待政府:询问公司的立场。

专利承诺网站

注释:

[1] 因为承诺故意含糊,我们在解释时需要常识。甚至反之亦然:承诺含糊是为了让人们在解释时使用常识。

例如,我故意避免说25人是否必须是员工,或者承包商是否也算。如果一个公司必须在这种精细程度上吹毛求疵,说明诉讼是否会违反专利承诺,这可能仍然是一种卑鄙的行为。

没有发生的投资

The Patent Pledge

August 2011

I realized recently that we may be able to solve part of the patent problem without waiting for the government.

I’ve never been 100% sure whether patents help or hinder technological progress. When I was a kid I thought they helped. I thought they protected inventors from having their ideas stolen by big companies. Maybe that was truer in the past, when more things were physical. But regardless of whether patents are in general a good thing, there do seem to be bad ways of using them. And since bad uses of patents seem to be increasing, there is an increasing call for patent reform.

The problem with patent reform is that it has to go through the government. That tends to be slow. But recently I realized we can also attack the problem downstream. As well as pinching off the stream of patents at the point where they’re issued, we may in some cases be able to pinch it off at the point where they’re used.

One way of using patents that clearly does not encourage innovation is when established companies with bad products use patents to suppress small competitors with good products. This is the type of abuse we may be able to decrease without having to go through the government.

The way to do it is to get the companies that are above pulling this sort of trick to pledge publicly not to. Then the ones that won’t make such a pledge will be very conspicuous. Potential employees won’t want to work for them. And investors, too, will be able to see that they’re the sort of company that competes by litigation rather than by making good products.

Here’s the pledge: No first use of software patents against companies with less than 25 people.

I’ve deliberately traded precision for brevity. The patent pledge is not legally binding. It’s like Google’s “Don’t be evil.” They don’t define what evil is, but by publicly saying that, they’re saying they’re willing to be held to a standard that, say, Altria is not. And though constraining, “Don’t be evil” has been good for Google. Technology companies win by attracting the most productive people, and the most productive people are attracted to employers who hold themselves to a higher standard than the law requires. [1]

The patent pledge is in effect a narrower but open source “Don’t be evil.” I encourage every technology company to adopt it. If you want to help fix patents, encourage your employer to.

Already most technology companies wouldn’t sink to using patents on startups. You don’t see Google or Facebook suing startups for patent infringement. They don’t need to. So for the better technology companies, the patent pledge requires no change in behavior. They’re just promising to do what they’d do anyway. And when all the companies that won’t use patents on startups have said so, the holdouts will be very conspicuous.

The patent pledge doesn’t fix every problem with patents. It won’t stop patent trolls, for example; they’re already pariahs. But the problem the patent pledge does fix may be more serious than the problem of patent trolls. Patent trolls are just parasites. A clumsy parasite may occasionally kill the host, but that’s not its goal. Whereas companies that sue startups for patent infringement generally do it with explicit goal of keeping their product off the market.

Companies that use patents on startups are attacking innovation at the root. Now there’s something any individual can do about this problem, without waiting for the government: ask companies where they stand.

Patent Pledge Site

Notes:

[1] Because the pledge is deliberately vague, we’re going to need common sense when interpreting it. And even more vice versa: the pledge is vague in order to make people use common sense when interpreting it.

So for example I’ve deliberately avoided saying whether the 25 people have to be employees, or whether contractors count too. If a company has to split hairs that fine about whether a suit would violate the patent pledge, it’s probably still a dick move.

The Investment That Didn’t Happen