4 ms·

Not sure why this was written up by CultofMac, aside from pageviews. The inventor doesn't have control anymore, and therefore no say in how the patent will or

by ekanes 15y ago

Not sure why this was written up by CultofMac, aside from pageviews. The inventor doesn't have control anymore, and therefore no say in how the patent will or won't be enforced. "Don't worry, it'll be fine" is meaningless.

Zikes 15y ago
There was question recently as to why Apple hasn't implemented this feature in many of its own applications.
malandrew 15y ago
Unless the inventor held onto "prior art" that inspired him that he could pull out as a wild card if Twitter tries to enforce the patent.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  I don't know if he can do that and still be considered to have been acting "in good faith" when he participated in the patent application.
  - malandrew 15y ago
    Probably not, but to whom is the good faith obligation to? Twitter or the USPTO? Another commenter stated that he patented defensively when negotiating to be bought out by twitter. If that is the case, he probably doesn't have a good faith obligation from the time he filed the patent. The question then rests on how the patent was represented at the deal. Did Twitter pay more because they factored in the value of his patent? If so, then I reckon good faith would extend to those negotiations and he'd only be in the clear as long as he did not misrepresent the patent.
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      Probably not, but to whom is the good faith obligation to? Twitter or the USPTO? I don't think that makes a difference to the inventor, except that the USPTO is less motivated to come after him. Is the "defensive" use of patents explicitly codified somehow, or is there a body of precedent explicitly cited, supporting this notion? If current practice is based on precedent, then this is unfortunate. What we have basically carries the weight of law, but was hacked together by fractionally clueful bureaucrats on a substrate that predates a widespread understanding of many of the concepts involved. (Or any understanding at all, in some cases.)

by ekanes 15y ago

Zikes 15y ago

There was question recently as to why Apple hasn't implemented this feature in many of its own applications.

malandrew 15y ago

Unless the inventor held onto "prior art" that inspired him that he could pull out as a wild card if Twitter tries to enforce the patent.

stcredzero 15y ago
I don't know if he can do that and still be considered to have been acting "in good faith" when he participated in the patent application.
- malandrew 15y ago
  Probably not, but to whom is the good faith obligation to? Twitter or the USPTO? Another commenter stated that he patented defensively when negotiating to be bought out by twitter. If that is the case, he probably doesn't have a good faith obligation from the time he filed the patent. The question then rests on how the patent was represented at the deal. Did Twitter pay more because they factored in the value of his patent? If so, then I reckon good faith would extend to those negotiations and he'd only be in the clear as long as he did not misrepresent the patent.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    Probably not, but to whom is the good faith obligation to? Twitter or the USPTO? I don't think that makes a difference to the inventor, except that the USPTO is less motivated to come after him. Is the "defensive" use of patents explicitly codified somehow, or is there a body of precedent explicitly cited, supporting this notion? If current practice is based on precedent, then this is unfortunate. What we have basically carries the weight of law, but was hacked together by fractionally clueful bureaucrats on a substrate that predates a widespread understanding of many of the concepts involved. (Or any understanding at all, in some cases.)