5 ms·

IIRC Loren filed this patent "defensively" prior to the Twitter acquisition. Of course, his original intent is irrelevant now.

stcredzero 15y ago
As a point of fact, patents weren't intended to act as munitions in a "defensive arsenal." They are so glaringly broken, it's not even funny.
- joelhooks 15y ago
  Really? I don't disagree with patents, especially in the software area, being broken. I'm trying to think what else they might be meant to act as. If I was to patent a novel Widget, it would be to protect/defend it against others copying the Widget without my permission. No?
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    Yes, that is the original intent. But now the wording of patents is deliberately vague so as to make them mushy and somewhat meaningless, which is intentional to increase their collision cross-section for use as weapons against other companies. Patents are no longer just used to protect the Widget. They are blurred into generalized legal bludgeons using the widget only as a pretext. There have been oppressive regimes that distorted the existing legal framework to use as a pretext for oppressing dissent. There have been nations using various combinations of fact and lies as a pretext for going to war. Laws are fine, but laws subverted to be used as a pretext are an abomination. National sovereignty is fine as a foundation concept in international law, but deliberate distortions that use the protection of sovereignty as a false pretext for war are abominations. Patents that truly respect prior art and are crafted to describe a specific mechanism are fine, but used as a vague and mushy pretext to enable large companies to arbitrarily bludgeon you with their legal department are an abomination.
  - dialtone 15y ago
    It's the other way around. The original intent of patents is to disclose the making of a device to the public domain in exchange for an exclusive royalty and eventually, after a certain amount of time, for the device to become public domain. Since the royalty is exclusive it means that you are the only one that is allowed to profit from the patent and here comes the defendability of patents. However if you really want to protect something then, by all means, keep it secret. Coca-Cola and Pepsi formulas are kept secret and will not be patented, for example.

stcredzero 15y ago

As a point of fact, patents weren't intended to act as munitions in a "defensive arsenal." They are so glaringly broken, it's not even funny.

joelhooks 15y ago
Really? I don't disagree with patents, especially in the software area, being broken. I'm trying to think what else they might be meant to act as. If I was to patent a novel Widget, it would be to protect/defend it against others copying the Widget without my permission. No?
- stcredzero 15y ago
  Yes, that is the original intent. But now the wording of patents is deliberately vague so as to make them mushy and somewhat meaningless, which is intentional to increase their collision cross-section for use as weapons against other companies. Patents are no longer just used to protect the Widget. They are blurred into generalized legal bludgeons using the widget only as a pretext. There have been oppressive regimes that distorted the existing legal framework to use as a pretext for oppressing dissent. There have been nations using various combinations of fact and lies as a pretext for going to war. Laws are fine, but laws subverted to be used as a pretext are an abomination. National sovereignty is fine as a foundation concept in international law, but deliberate distortions that use the protection of sovereignty as a false pretext for war are abominations. Patents that truly respect prior art and are crafted to describe a specific mechanism are fine, but used as a vague and mushy pretext to enable large companies to arbitrarily bludgeon you with their legal department are an abomination.
- dialtone 15y ago
  It's the other way around. The original intent of patents is to disclose the making of a device to the public domain in exchange for an exclusive royalty and eventually, after a certain amount of time, for the device to become public domain. Since the royalty is exclusive it means that you are the only one that is allowed to profit from the patent and here comes the defendability of patents. However if you really want to protect something then, by all means, keep it secret. Coca-Cola and Pepsi formulas are kept secret and will not be patented, for example.