5 ms·

I realize that we all have strong opinions about the topic of software patents, but in an effort to radiate more light and less heat, I think it is important to

by Arjuna 14y ago

I realize that we all have strong opinions about the topic of software patents, but in an effort to radiate more light and less heat, I think it is important to understand the official Twitter position on this topic as well. Introducing the Innovator's Patent Agreement Note: Emphasis is mine. "We will implement the IPA later this year, and it will apply to all patents issued to our engineers, both past and present." [1] "The Innovators Patent Agreement (IPA) is a new way to do patent assignment that keeps control in the hands of engineers and designers. It is a commitment from a company to its employees that patents can only be used for defensive purposes. The company will not use the patents in offensive litigation without the permission of the inventors. This control flows with the patents, so if the company sells the patents to others, the assignee can only use the patents as the inventor intended." [2] [1] http://engineering.twitter.com/2012/04/introducing-innovators-patent-agreement.html http://engineering.twitter.com/2012/04/introducing-innovator... [2] https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement https://github.com/twitter/innovators-patent-agreement

cacois 14y ago
And how do they plan on enforcing that?
- 6thSigma 14y ago
  I wonder if it could be used as a defense for the defendant in the case of Twitter using their patents on the offensive. i.e. Twitter sues Company X for using a follower system. Company X asks judge to throw out the complaint based on the Innovators Patent Agreement that the Twitter CEO and board signed.
- jeremyarussell 14y ago
  The same way lawyers already enforce contracts? If I had to guess. That and having publicly made the statement, they would see a mass exodus of users if they broke their own promise. (Think GoDaddy)
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    Contracts require (amongst other things) counter-parties who also sign and the exchange of goods or services between the parties ("consideration"), neither of which unilaterally signing some random document has. In law, it is very difficult for individuals to bind their future selves. You generally need another party to create obligations that they can enforce against you. So for example counter-parties to a contract, trustees and beneficiaries, employers and employees, fiduciary agents and their clients etc etc. All of these require distinct legal persons to work, if you you combine them into a single legal person the obligations evaporate. Because when it's you vs you the law pretty sensibly throws its hands in the air and says "well what the hell do you want the courts to do? Hop in a time machine and drag past you into court?" IANAL, TINLA.
alexkus 14y ago
> The company will not use the patents in offensive litigation without the permission of the inventors. Now look at the names on the patent in question. Do you think they'll oppose offensive litigation specific to this patent?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mmanfrin 14y ago
Because Twitter is a company whose word is trustable?
RobAley 14y ago
It's important to note that the names on the patent are Jack Dorsey and Chris "Biz" Stone, not the ordinary staff/engineers at Twitter, at which the IPA was aimed. Also note that nothing in the IPA prevents the use of patents offensively if the named inventors agree. In effect, the IPA isn't relevant to this patent, as the named inventors haven't (and probably won't) make a commitment not to use it to protect their business/personal interests.

by Arjuna 14y ago

cacois 14y ago

And how do they plan on enforcing that?

6thSigma 14y ago
I wonder if it could be used as a defense for the defendant in the case of Twitter using their patents on the offensive. i.e. Twitter sues Company X for using a follower system. Company X asks judge to throw out the complaint based on the Innovators Patent Agreement that the Twitter CEO and board signed.
jeremyarussell 14y ago
The same way lawyers already enforce contracts? If I had to guess. That and having publicly made the statement, they would see a mass exodus of users if they broke their own promise. (Think GoDaddy)
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Contracts require (amongst other things) counter-parties who also sign and the exchange of goods or services between the parties ("consideration"), neither of which unilaterally signing some random document has. In law, it is very difficult for individuals to bind their future selves. You generally need another party to create obligations that they can enforce against you. So for example counter-parties to a contract, trustees and beneficiaries, employers and employees, fiduciary agents and their clients etc etc. All of these require distinct legal persons to work, if you you combine them into a single legal person the obligations evaporate. Because when it's you vs you the law pretty sensibly throws its hands in the air and says "well what the hell do you want the courts to do? Hop in a time machine and drag past you into court?" IANAL, TINLA.

alexkus 14y ago

> The company will not use the patents in offensive litigation without the permission of the inventors. Now look at the names on the patent in question. Do you think they'll oppose offensive litigation specific to this patent?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mmanfrin 14y ago

Because Twitter is a company whose word is trustable?

RobAley 14y ago

It's important to note that the names on the patent are Jack Dorsey and Chris "Biz" Stone, not the ordinary staff/engineers at Twitter, at which the IPA was aimed. Also note that nothing in the IPA prevents the use of patents offensively if the named inventors agree. In effect, the IPA isn't relevant to this patent, as the named inventors haven't (and probably won't) make a commitment not to use it to protect their business/personal interests.