[TOS] Notes: learning about technology transfer and open source

Rob Cameron cameron at cs.sfu.ca
Mon Apr 6 16:36:19 UTC 2009


Hi, Greg.

No, the Red Hat patent policy does not look to be helpful
in engaging with TT organizations.

By starting out with the statement that "software patents are
inconsistent with open source/free software," it immediately
creates barriers.

Imagine what you would think if the TT organization made the
statement that "open source software is fundamentally inconsistent
with successful business models."   In fact, this is a view of many
TT types.   It makes apparent sense in a superficial way, but it
is wrong.  We must fight it.

To create constructive dialogue with TT offices, both positions
must be dropped.

If one looks at the fundamental purpose of the patent system
as defined in the US constitution, i.e.,  "to promote the progress
of science and the useful arts," it is clear that this purpose ought
to be quite compatible with free and open source software,
which is an important modern system for advancing science
and the useful arts.   The problem is that laws have not been
modernized to make the systems work together.

Universities are places where the conflict should be resolved.
We should be telling the TT offices this:  we are happy with you
patenting whatever technology you want, provided that you
allow those patents to be freely used in open source.   This is
a patentleft concept and the open source community can
show you how to make successful business models from it
based on our long experience with copyleft.

Furthermore, we should say to them that universities have
no business enforcing patents against free and open source
software.   It is the responsibility of universities to advance
and disseminate knowledge.   FOSS is a system which does
that and is THE system for advancement and dissemination
of the detailed technical knowledge underlying much of the
world's public computing infrastructure.    Universities should
acknowledge the commonality of purpose with FOSS and
covenant that all of their patents will be permitted for free
use in open source.

For more information about how this may work, have a
look at the following tech transfer vision statement.
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~cameron/tech-transfer.html


On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Greg Dekoenigsberg <gdk at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Rob Cameron wrote: is not helpful
>
>> Greg,
>>
>> I would like to work with you on this topic.   Can we form an
>> interest group?
>
> Sure.  The folks at C4 would be ready to join, I suspect.
>
>> You mention *zero* information for TT orgs, when it comes
>> to open source.    I think this applies particularly to the elephant
>> in the room: patents.
>> is not helpful
>> The main role of a TT office is:  (1) to protect intellectual property
>> arising from university research using patents and other means, and (2) to
>> license that technology to the benefit of the university.
>>
>> We are never going to get far with TT orgs unless we can offer
>> some kind of constructive patentleft business model that respects
>> both open source ideals and allows them to generate revenue
>> from the patents.
>
> There is an inherent tension between open source software development and
> patents that is very, very difficult to resolve.
>
> That said, the Red Hat patent promise is one of the best compromises I've
> seen.  Have a look:
>
> http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
>
> Is this the sort of compromise that might interest TT professionals?
>
> --g
>
> --
> Got an XO that you're not using?  Loan it to a needy developer!
>  [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]]
>
>



-- 
Robert D. Cameron, Ph.D.
Professor of Computing Science
Simon Fraser University



More information about the tos mailing list