[ih] patents and public stewardship

[Vint Cerf]

Bob, the PTO supports non-profits like the National Science and Technology
Medals Foundation so at least some of that income is being re-injected into
worthy causes.

v


On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 12:47 PM Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Only one comment, which not everyone realizes:
>
> *" Santa Claus giving away free resources for public benefit, **
>
> The PTO runs at a huge profit, giving away (usually) worthless pieces of
> paper. It's not allowed to keep that money and use it to improve patent
> quality, hire more examiners, or do anything valuable. Instead, it just
> flows straight to the Treasury.
>
> This is 10+ year old information, so it's possible it's out of date.
>
> *Finally, another reminder: There's a bill in the Senate
> <https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2140/text#:~:text=Introduced%20in%20Senate%20(06%2F22%2F2023)&text=To%20amend%20title%2035%2C%20United,eligibility%2C%20and%20for%20other%20purposes.>that
> would undo the modest progress that CLS Bank v. Alice made towards getting
> rid of software patents. Write your Senator and ask any Senate candidates
> to oppose it.*
>
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 9:12 AM John Gilmore via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> The conflict of interest between public stewards of resources that
>> should be public, versus the private self-interest of the people
>> involved in that stewardship, is ancient and ongoing.  In the Internet
>> community it is visible everywhere, from the IETF vs. vendors, to ISOC
>> vs. foo.org users, to the ICANN's secretariat, lawyers, sinecure jobs,
>> and junkets.  As well as in people trying to tilt the patent and
>> copyright laws in courts and in Congress to favor themselves.  And in
>> the operation of the US Congress itself.  Google spends billions to
>> pitch itself so the public thinks of it as Santa Claus giving away free
>> resources for public benefit, while making tens of billions for itself.
>>
>> What was that quote about if you like sausage, don't look inside a
>> sausage factory?
>>
>> Tom Lehrer made great songs, and releasing them for the public domain in
>> his later life was a good move that will help his legacy stay alive
>> after he's gone.  The US copyright system used to do this automatically
>> after 28 years, back when it was structured to benefit the public.
>>
>> Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> > Thanks Karl, that's helpful. I like your idea for ISOC - a service that
>> > they could be compensated for doing.
>>
>> There are other places such as the Software Freedom Conservancy that
>> hold patents and copyrights for free software projects that don't have
>> their own nonprofit infrastructure.
>>
>> In general it's better to have dozens of such places.  If one place
>> accumulates a critical mass of valuable intellectual property, it will
>> end up attacked, perhaps sneakily, to obtain control of it and then use
>> that monopoly to make money unjustly.  If there are dozens, and one
>> becomes incompetent or self-interested, the whole world won't get
>> affected, just a little corner of it.
>>
>> >                                       As you know, ISOC has a challenge
>> > demonstrating the level of public support it has (the so-called IRS
>> Public
>> > Support Test) that requires it to show that at least 1/3 of its income
>> > comes from a broad range of public sources. They can only count a
>> fraction
>> > of the PIR income as "public".
>>
>> The Internet Society used its pull with ICANN to get tens of millions of
>> dollars a year for doing nothing (by getting the monopoly on .org).
>> Various people have various opinions on whether that was a good thing.
>> (I was on the ISOC Board a bit before that, and like many nonprofits,
>> raising funding for ISOC was always a challenge, until then.)
>>
>> Hearing a complaint about how that large flow of money from overpriced
>> .org domains makes it hard for them to stay a legal nonprofit (*) would
>> be amusing, except for what happened in between.
>>
>> ISOC tried to sell that monopoly for a billion dollars to a
>> private-equity player (in concert with a couple of high-level people who
>> had bolted from the ICANN monopoly to make a killing for themselves).
>> The only credible plan to make back the billion for the investor was to
>> then jack up the prices of .org domains for every nonprofit in the
>> world.  It took a large effort, led by people with .org domains
>> (including EFF.org) who didn't want to suffer so ISOC could profit, to
>> derail that plan.  Ultimately, self-interest scrutiny by the California
>> attorney general's office that regulates nonprofits (including ICANN
>> itself) borked the deal.  See:
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Interest_Registry#Proposed_sale_of_the_Public_Interest_Registry
>>
>> If I had valuable intellectual property to preserve for the freedom
>> and benefit of the Internet community, I would recommend choosing
>> its steward wisely, rather than defaulting to giving it to ISOC.
>>
>>         John
>>
>> PS: (*) I'm on the board of ARDC.net, a small nonprofit which got a
>> $100M windfall from the ham-radio 44/8.  We couldn't honestly claim at
>> that point that the public was our source of support.  We became a
>> private foundation rather than try to continue as a 501(c)(3) public
>> charity.  ISOC could do the same.  Or, ISOC could price .org domains
>> more cheaply, rather than raking off a big premium for its own
>> self-interest, at which point the money flow from PIR would lessen.
>> Once it was less than twice as much as what ISOC collects as general
>> public support, their public-charity status would be secure.  Wouldn't
>> that be a great outcome?
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>

-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice