zlacker

>>gkober+(OP)
So an informal non-aggression pact is nice, but absolutely no automobile manufacturer would rely on that when a new car costs a significant fraction of a billion dollars to bring to market. (If I were a cynical man, I might think this didn't escape their notice.)

If it were me, and the true intent was to distribute the Tesla patents as widely as possible, I would have said "Tesla pledges to license its entire patent portfolio, on a worldwide non-exclusive no-royalty basis, to any interested party. We will ask for consideration in the amount of $1 for a 99 year license. Your lawyers and accountants can reassure you that these sort of symbolic commitments hold up in court. They'll also no doubt ask to see the full terms, which are about as boring as you'd expect, and which are available from our Legal Department."

>>patio1+9e
If I were Tesla, I'd also request that the licensing party grant a reciprocal bulk license to Tesla as well. Or, barring that, that Tesla reserves the right to revoke the license if you initiate a patent lawsuit against it.

>>andrew+Tf
Does there exist such a patent license with no security holes? I would imagine that it would read, “License will be revoked if you 1) Sue me for patent infringement. 2) Sell a patent to a company that sues me for patent infringement (like Intellectual Ventures does). 3) Sponsor the development of a patent, and the owner of the patent sues me for patent infringement. 4) Contract with a patent pool that sues me for patent infringement. 5) Sue my partners or customers for patent infringement (like Apple vs. Google’s partners)...” and so on ad infinitum.

>>yonran+Dh
http://www.defensivepatentlicense.com/

(i'm not asserting it is perfect, just that it is an effort towards what you describe)

>>bshank+gl
It's an interesting attempt. The problem I'm seeing is that it seems to do nothing about non-practicing entities, or to prevent the sort of thing Microsoft et al have done with Rockstar, essentially paying to license a bunch of questionable patents with the foreseeable effect of giving the non-practicing entity enough cash to create a menace for their competitors.

What could be an interesting solution is to prevent people who want the protection of the mutual license from licensing patents from anyone else under any other terms. So if you want the protection of the license and a patent troll approaches you, your only choice is to either vanquish the troll or buy the patent outright and immunize everyone.

That should mean no more Rockstars at least, and should make life more difficult for trolls because they couldn't license patents anymore, only sell them outright.

>>Anthon+Bq
> it seems to do nothing about non-practicing entities

It doesn't do anything about non-practicing entities because it can't. There's no formulation of words that could cause a license to have any bearing on NPEs.

Your potential wording would make the patent license completely unusable. Perhaps an alternative might be something along the lines of: You may not license a patent that has been involved in legal dispute. If a licensed patent is subsequently involved in legal dispute, either this license or that license must be terminated within NN months.

>>sjwrig+0I
It doesn't do anything about non-practicing entities because it can't.

I think AnthonyMouse's comment was referring to NPEs that were sponsored by a practicing entity that is subject to a reciprocal license. An effective such license would have to restrict participants from indirectly funding attacks that would be violations of their agreement if they carried out the attacks themselves.