4 ms·

Twitter Launches Innovator’s Patent Agreement

20 points by Garbage 13y ago

StavrosK 13y ago
This sounds like a very good first step. I would also like to see a clause that specifies that, when a third party assigns a patent to Twitter, they get to use any of Twitter's patents for defensive purposes. This would hopefully lead to many people assigning their patents to Twitter, and thus being able to use any of the large pile of patents defensively. It would be a very good deterrent for anyone suing them, yet would make them all unable to use any of the patents to sue. I'm not sure how enforceable it is, though.
- Kliment 13y ago
  This is exactly how Intellectual Ventures, one of the biggest if not the biggest patent trolls of all time was started. We really, really do not need another one of those fuckheads.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    Really? Do you have a summary of/mind telling the story?
    - Kliment 13y ago
      The best reconstruction of the events was published last year in Stanford Technology law Review. It's available at http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/feldman-giants-among-us.pdf http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/feldman-giants-among-us.pdf
      - StavrosK 13y ago
        That looks like an interesting (if long) read, thank you.
  - mcintyre1994 13y ago
    I can see why this could become dangerous, but the IPA would actually make it appear surprisingly robust. Twitter have to have the inventor's permission to use the patents offensively, so a huge war chest that basically acts like a patent pool for a lot of people isn't actually a threat to those outside of it unless all their inventors decide to allow patent trolling. They also couldn't transfer them to a patent holding company to do that because the IPA holds even if the patent is sold. There are of course issues, but the idea proposed could actually be a major turning point here. A patent pool that can only be used defensively is a very interesting idea.
    - Kliment 13y ago
      Yes, but not in the hands of a single company. What happens if Twitter goes bankrupt? Does whoever acquire the assets then hold the portfolio? Do the terms of the agreement bind them? I like the idea, but having Twitter play that role is too fragile.
      - atebits 13y ago
        Yes, the IPA is bound to future owners of the patents. (It would be trivial to get around if it wasn't). And to clarify: the goal of the IPA isn't to make Twitter or any one company some blessed repository of patents. The goal is for many companies to adopt the IPA as a promise between them and their engineers.
        Kliment 13y ago
        How does that actually become legally binding? If the patents are assigned to Twitter, and are later transferred to an entity that never agreed to the IPA, what actually happens? I honestly have no idea how it would work out. And I fully agree about the IPA's goal, I'm protesting against people saying that it should be treated as a benevolent patent pool now. On the whole, I think the entire patent bullshit is moronic and should be annihilated at first opportunity, but that's a different story.
        13y ago
- btilly 13y ago
  I would also like to see a clause that specifies that, when a third party assigns a patent to Twitter, they get to use any of Twitter's patents for defensive purposes. How do you use patents defensively against a patent troll with no products? The only method that I see is to offer the troll the option to purchase another patent in return for an agreement to not pursue their existing one. Reading the fine print of http://www.rpxcorp.com/index.cfm?pageid=23 http://www.rpxcorp.com/index.cfm?pageid=23 some time ago lead me to think that they do exactly this. They've taken out the text that lead me to think that they do so, but how else could their central market position help after patent litigation has begun?
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    How do you use patents offensively against a patent troll with no products? There's no drawback in that situation. The only problem is the fear of creating such a monster while trying to do good.
    - btilly 13y ago
      I agree that for the company being sued, there is no downside to feeding the patent troll monster by selling a desirable patent to a known patent troll, and there is no cheaper way out if you've got a large portfolio of patents. But for the tech ecosystem as a whole, there are huge downsides. I feel this personally because a former employer got three patents from my work, then assigned them to that particular pool. Despite my personal belief that those patents should not be patents, they could potentially be asserted against some popular technologies and big companies, and if they did then I'd be legally obliged to testify. (This is not a mistake that I feel inclined to repeat, but a decade ago I was not as informed as I now am...)
      - StavrosK 13y ago
        I mean there's no drawback in having your patents unusable for offense, since you wouldn't have a product to use them against, even if you could. Selling a patent to a troll obviously has huge downsides, as you said.

20 points by Garbage 13y ago

This sounds like a very good first step. I would also like to see a clause that specifies that, when a third party assigns a patent to Twitter, they get to use any of Twitter's patents for defensive purposes. This would hopefully lead to many people assigning their patents to Twitter, and thus being able to use any of the large pile of patents defensively. It would be a very good deterrent for anyone suing them, yet would make them all unable to use any of the patents to sue. I'm not sure how enforceable it is, though.

Kliment 13y ago
This is exactly how Intellectual Ventures, one of the biggest if not the biggest patent trolls of all time was started. We really, really do not need another one of those fuckheads.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Really? Do you have a summary of/mind telling the story?
  - Kliment 13y ago
    The best reconstruction of the events was published last year in Stanford Technology law Review. It's available at http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/feldman-giants-among-us.pdf http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/feldman-giants-among-us.pdf
    - StavrosK 13y ago
      That looks like an interesting (if long) read, thank you.
- mcintyre1994 13y ago
  I can see why this could become dangerous, but the IPA would actually make it appear surprisingly robust. Twitter have to have the inventor's permission to use the patents offensively, so a huge war chest that basically acts like a patent pool for a lot of people isn't actually a threat to those outside of it unless all their inventors decide to allow patent trolling. They also couldn't transfer them to a patent holding company to do that because the IPA holds even if the patent is sold. There are of course issues, but the idea proposed could actually be a major turning point here. A patent pool that can only be used defensively is a very interesting idea.
  - Kliment 13y ago
    Yes, but not in the hands of a single company. What happens if Twitter goes bankrupt? Does whoever acquire the assets then hold the portfolio? Do the terms of the agreement bind them? I like the idea, but having Twitter play that role is too fragile.
    - atebits 13y ago
      Yes, the IPA is bound to future owners of the patents. (It would be trivial to get around if it wasn't). And to clarify: the goal of the IPA isn't to make Twitter or any one company some blessed repository of patents. The goal is for many companies to adopt the IPA as a promise between them and their engineers.
      - Kliment 13y ago
        How does that actually become legally binding? If the patents are assigned to Twitter, and are later transferred to an entity that never agreed to the IPA, what actually happens? I honestly have no idea how it would work out. And I fully agree about the IPA's goal, I'm protesting against people saying that it should be treated as a benevolent patent pool now. On the whole, I think the entire patent bullshit is moronic and should be annihilated at first opportunity, but that's a different story.
        13y ago
btilly 13y ago
I would also like to see a clause that specifies that, when a third party assigns a patent to Twitter, they get to use any of Twitter's patents for defensive purposes. How do you use patents defensively against a patent troll with no products? The only method that I see is to offer the troll the option to purchase another patent in return for an agreement to not pursue their existing one. Reading the fine print of http://www.rpxcorp.com/index.cfm?pageid=23 http://www.rpxcorp.com/index.cfm?pageid=23 some time ago lead me to think that they do exactly this. They've taken out the text that lead me to think that they do so, but how else could their central market position help after patent litigation has begun?
- StavrosK 13y ago
  How do you use patents offensively against a patent troll with no products? There's no drawback in that situation. The only problem is the fear of creating such a monster while trying to do good.
  - btilly 13y ago
    I agree that for the company being sued, there is no downside to feeding the patent troll monster by selling a desirable patent to a known patent troll, and there is no cheaper way out if you've got a large portfolio of patents. But for the tech ecosystem as a whole, there are huge downsides. I feel this personally because a former employer got three patents from my work, then assigned them to that particular pool. Despite my personal belief that those patents should not be patents, they could potentially be asserted against some popular technologies and big companies, and if they did then I'd be legally obliged to testify. (This is not a mistake that I feel inclined to repeat, but a decade ago I was not as informed as I now am...)
    - StavrosK 13y ago
      I mean there's no drawback in having your patents unusable for offense, since you wouldn't have a product to use them against, even if you could. Selling a patent to a troll obviously has huge downsides, as you said.