The Twitter "Patent Hack"
avc.com
The Twitter "Patent Hack"
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"
#2Can't the acquiring company simply pay off the inventor(s) to get their permission to use the patents offensively? Say, a 50 / 50 split?
Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"
#3Can't the acquiring company simply pay off the inventor(s) to get their permission to use the patents offensively? Say, a 50 / 50 split?
This is hard if the developers on question are unwilling to do so. A somewhat parallel in the whole VLC iphone app not meeting the GPL fiasco comes to mind... They pulled the app because some dev complained. Then again, a corporation with deep enough pockets might be able to cough up enough money to change minds. I'll defer to Raldi on this...
Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"
#4Can't the acquiring company simply pay off the inventor(s) to get their permission to use the patents offensively? Say, a 50 / 50 split?
Won't the breach-of-contract damages be a lot less than the awards from using the patent offensively?
It just seems to me that if some evil company buys the patents, they're not going to respect the agreement the inventors and Twitter signed. For the agreement to cause financial damage, the inventors would have to sue the evil company that obviously has a ton of lawyers. Can you afford to sue Microsoft? I can't.
Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"
#5Can't the acquiring company simply pay off the inventor(s) to get their permission to use the patents offensively? Say, a 50 / 50 split?
Won't the breach-of-contract damages be a lot less than the awards from using the patent offensively? It just seems to me that if some evil company buys the patents, they're not going to respect the agreement the inventors and Twitter signed. For the agreement to cause financial damage, the inventors would have to sue the evil company that obviously has a ton of lawyers. Can you afford to sue Microsoft? I can't.
Well, the inventors have the leverage in this case, because they can license the patents to whoever is being sued. The whole point of the patent hack is that the inventors continue holding limited rights to the patents, that is, the acquiring company does not fully control them. They can breach contract all they want, but their offense can be neutralized by the inventors by simply licensing to the victim.
Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Won't the breach-of-contract damages be a lot less than the awards from using the patent offensively? It just seems to me that if some evil company buys the patents, they're not going to respect the agreement the inventors and Twitter signed. For the agreement to cause financial damage, the inventors would have to sue the evil company that obviously has a ton of lawyers. Can you afford to sue Microsoft? I can't.
Well, the inventors have the leverage in this case, because they can license the patents to whoever is being sued. The whole point of the patent hack is that the inventors continue holding limited rights to the patents, that is, the acquiring company does not fully control them. They can breach contract all they want, but their offense can be neutralized by the inventors by simply licensing to the victim.
Edit: I was wrong here, see the reply below.
No, the inventors don't have the right to license the patents to whomever is being sued. The twitter agreement gives all rights in the patent to the assignee, just like any other assignment, but it adds on the clause that the assignee agrees to get permission from the inventor if they want to sue offensively with the patent. In the future, if the assignee (whoever it is at that time) decides to sue offensively without the permission of the inventor, the assignee can (and indeed they have the right to). The inventor would then have a cause of action for breach of contract against the assignee, but who knows what that would amount to.
Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"
#7Reading Fred's story, maybe we should re-examine whether patents are transferable like other assets. Maybe some modification that says the original inventor gets a 20-year monopoly, but any assigned parties only get a 5-year monopoly from file date. That would greatly reduce the incentive to buy other companies' patents, and thereby reduce the overall value of a company's patent "portfolio, while at the same time protecting the original inventor's rights.
Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"
#8Reading Fred's story, maybe we should re-examine whether patents are transferable like other assets. Maybe some modification that says the original inventor gets a 20-year monopoly, but any assigned parties only get a 5-year monopoly from file date. That would greatly reduce the incentive to buy other companies' patents, and thereby reduce the overall value of a company's patent "portfolio, while at the same time pro…
that's not too far from where twitter is going with its IPA
Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Won't the breach-of-contract damages be a lot less than the awards from using the patent offensively? It just seems to me that if some evil company buys the patents, they're not going to respect the agreement the inventors and Twitter signed. For the agreement to cause financial damage, the inventors would have to sue the evil company that obviously has a ton of lawyers. Can you afford to sue Microsoft? I can't.
Well, the inventors have the leverage in this case, because they can license the patents to whoever is being sued. The whole point of the patent hack is that the inventors continue holding limited rights to the patents, that is, the acquiring company does not fully control them. They can breach contract all they want, but their offense can be neutralized by the inventors by simply licensing to the victim.
yes, exactly. that is the thing that many people are missing about the elegance of this hack
Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the inventors have the leverage in this case, because they can license the patents to whoever is being sued. The whole point of the patent hack is that the inventors continue holding limited rights to the patents, that is, the acquiring company does not fully control them. They can breach contract all they want, but their offense can be neutralized by the inventors by simply licensing to the victim.
Edit: I was wrong here, see the reply below. No, the inventors don't have the right to license the patents to whomever is being sued. The twitter agreement gives all rights in the patent to the assignee, just like any other assignment, but it adds on the clause that the assignee agrees to get permission from the inventor if they want to sue offensively with the patent. In the future, if the assignee (whoever it is at…
Did you actually read the agreement? Kliment is correct. The inventors are granted an irrevocable license to sub license the patent to any target of offensive use of the patent. IANAL, but presumably existing licenses on a patent are attached to the patent and are not just a contractual matter between the licensee and original patent owner.