Talk:Patentleft

Example Doesn't Make Sense

C should not be infected by A if patentleft works like copyleft. B should be able to dual-license his patents. So he must license them to everyone under patentleft, but can separately license them to C under a proprietary agreement, meaning C can keep his patents proprietary -- provided C doesn't use any of A's patents under patentleft terms. Jdz (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Patent

Is patentleft a real thing? I can't find a credible source or example of this? Can we merge this with something else? —mako๛ 02:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Some new sources:

The article that Wonderbreadboi put up definitely has some very useful information for this article. I think there is probably more that can be taken from it. I also have these two papers that I am trying to parse information from:

• Science, Open Communication and Sustainable Development, John T. Wilbanks and Thomas J. Wilbanks
• Sharing access to intellectual property through private ordering, Séverine Dusollier

I think there is definitely enough here for a nice little article, although i admit it is a pretty sparsely used and vaguely defined concept. (Wkrantz (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC))

The source I (tpka) was using to edit the History section has some good information, but it goes a little too much in depth about some legal processes of patent left. But maybe incorporating some of it would be good, if you want to check out the article here it is: http://www.lesi.org/images/60d5b196-0941-407d-a3d0-8c79d678c6bf.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpka (talk • contribs) 00:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

This is a fascinating topic. I'm glad to see it's getting more attention!

However, I'm very concerned about one edit. I removed a portion of text form the history section, which was copied with modifications from http://www.lesi.org/images/60d5b196-0941-407d-a3d0-8c79d678c6bf.pdf . The text must not be restored. It may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize that source. It's serious – please read these: WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM.

In several instances phrases were copied verbatim, and at least one complete sentence was copied exactly, but for a few deleted words. --Pnm (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of patentleft vs. criticism of anti-patent

I started to summarize this paragraph but removed it instead, since it doesn't apply to patentleft:

Patent left is crucial for innovation and the future of mankind as a whole as it makes certain things only once available to a certain company now available to an entire industry. This allows for the industry to work together more efficiently and achieve greater results in shorter amounts of time. However, one problem that patent left may then create is a lack of interest in developing industry traits and processes because if they become available to all it takes away from one's ability to make money off them. It is this issue that puts patent left on a fine line between lack of incentive and increase in efficiency and output.

Since patentleft is voluntary, its existence doesn't create a disincentive to innovate. It only applies to those who deliberately give up their right to commercialize.

That there should be a balance between (1) incentive to innovate and (2) efficiency/output: it's a good point, but it's about the patent/anti-patent debate, not patentleft. --Pnm (talk) 04:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

As explained here, I suggest merging the content of open patent to patentleft. Both seem to be about exactly the same concept, as far as I can see. --Edcolins (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense to me. --Pnm (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Klbrain (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)