Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Twitter "Patent Hack"

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#21

Post by nroach »

3pt14159 wrote: post #18
mistercow wrote: post #14

The problem I see with this is that it doesn't (and, I think, can't) really account for the future. Suppose you see that Twitter has a patent on buttons that you have to quadruple click, and you think they'll only use it defensively, so you make a free jQuery plugin called t4p, which implements quadruple clickable buttons. Three years pass and now a new service, Blithr (like Twitter but messages are limited to 18 cha…

They don't own the patents for use in offensive actions so the patents would serve no use to a patent troll. It would take the originator's consent.

Ah, and there's the rub. All it takes is a nod from the inventor, and the patents can be used offensively. If I'm a troll and putting together a portfolio to go after a "big fish", I probably already have the resources to offer the inventor a sizeable cut or up front payment sufficient to acquire that consent.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#22

Post by john-n »

damoncali wrote: post #19
VanL wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, patents are sold encumbered by their previous licenses. Another entity may acquire the patents, but the portfolio would still be subject to this agreement. The issue is the ambiguity of "defensive" action gives the assignee of the patent relatively broad license to act without the consent of the inventor - and the inventor can be suborned later, too. (Trust me, that happens.)

No, patents are sold encumbered by their previous licenses. Do you really believe that will happen? When investors are asking why some pinhead inventor is holding up their profits? You can't force everyone involved in a company to think this is a good idea, and therefore, it isn't. Edit: (For some added color, imagine Kevin O'leary of Shark Tank fame sitting on the board of a company with some of these patents).

If its part of the license agreement, they would have no choice (clearly, IANAL).

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#23

Post by bluelu »

I think Twitter they should go one step further and form a pool of companies which bring in all their patents and: 1) If you join, you are not allowed to bring any other patent lawsuits against other companies. 2) If you get sued, you are able to attack the sueing company with all the patents in the pool.

Or even add: If you are licencing a patent to another company, the licencing is void if that company attacks another company.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#24

Post by brlewis »

damoncali wrote: post #19
VanL wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, patents are sold encumbered by their previous licenses. Another entity may acquire the patents, but the portfolio would still be subject to this agreement. The issue is the ambiguity of "defensive" action gives the assignee of the patent relatively broad license to act without the consent of the inventor - and the inventor can be suborned later, too. (Trust me, that happens.)

No, patents are sold encumbered by their previous licenses. Do you really believe that will happen? When investors are asking why some pinhead inventor is holding up their profits? You can't force everyone involved in a company to think this is a good idea, and therefore, it isn't. Edit: (For some added color, imagine Kevin O'leary of Shark Tank fame sitting on the board of a company with some of these patents).

Why do you expect investors to be stupid?

The article we're commenting on is an investor excited that software patents will stop holding up profits.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#25

Post by drcube »

What's with the "inventor gets to change his mind" clause? That's like having a clause in the GPL that says at any given time, the author can revoke the GPL and sell the copyright to Microsoft. It appears like they're not taking this seriously.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#26

Post by damoncali »

brlewis wrote: post #24
damoncali wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, patents are sold encumbered by their previous licenses. Do you really believe that will happen? When investors are asking why some pinhead inventor is holding up their profits? You can't force everyone involved in a company to think this is a good idea, and therefore, it isn't. Edit: (For some added color, imagine Kevin O'leary of Shark Tank fame sitting on the board of a company with some of these patents).

Why do you expect investors to be stupid? The article we're commenting on is an investor excited that software patents will stop holding up profits.

A very specific kind of investor - a career-long early stage VC. But even there, there is much room for disagreement without labeling people as "stupid".

I expect investors to be rational - and to seek profits where they are available given the information that is currently on the table. In some cases, that means they will say, "you know what? Screw that doc - we're selling these puppies."

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#27

Post by phillmv »

drcube wrote: post #25

What's with the "inventor gets to change his mind" clause? That's like having a clause in the GPL that says at any given time, the author can revoke the GPL and sell the copyright to Microsoft. It appears like they're not taking this seriously.

I interpreted it as a concession to moral rights - we can't initiate a lawsuit without your consent, sort of idea.

More broadly, they're hedging their bits by trying to preserve some financial value to their patent portfolio.

Suppose you patent "swipe left to refresh" and five years later the private equity group that has bought the husk of your former company approaches you and offers you 10 grand for the right to litigate aggressively… I would find it hard to say no, despite thinking all software patents are bunk.

In the end, it's converting the yc pledge into legally binding language, and without limiting it to just startups. Like the pledge, it's rather toothless – but a step in the right direction.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#28

Post by damoncali »

fredwilson wrote: post #9
Kliment wrote: post #5

Earlier 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.

yes, exactly. that is the thing that many people are missing about the elegance of this hack

Wouldn't this "evil" company just buy out or otherwise pressure the inventor? I don't see how that works.

In one case, evil company buys patent, and pays off everyone involved to drop this agreement. Now we're back to normal.

In another case, evil company can't get eveyrone to do that, so the transaction doesn't happen.

This seems exactly the same as saying "We won't use our patents offensively, and we won't sell them." No legal documents required.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#29

Post by phillmv »

3pt14159 wrote: post #20

The question I have that I really, really, really want the answer to be "yes" for is this: I've created a couple things that are "patentable" (not that I would want them to be, but they are) so can I email someone at Twitter and essentially say the following: "Hey, I want these things patented, but I have no money. Can you patent them for me, giving you the defensive rights and me the licensing rights? I will never a…

I would doubt it.

For starters, how would you enforce licensing? You'd have to… sue other people for patent infringement. I thought we were all agreeing that software patents are mostly unadulterated bullshit.

Secondly, if they put up the patent lawyer cost why wouldn't they also keep any potential licensing fees ;)?

In the end the Right Thing To Do™ would be to publish your work and try to establish it as prior art so people can't abuse it.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#30

Post by VanL »

damoncali wrote: post #19
VanL wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, patents are sold encumbered by their previous licenses. Another entity may acquire the patents, but the portfolio would still be subject to this agreement. The issue is the ambiguity of "defensive" action gives the assignee of the patent relatively broad license to act without the consent of the inventor - and the inventor can be suborned later, too. (Trust me, that happens.)

No, patents are sold encumbered by their previous licenses. Do you really believe that will happen? When investors are asking why some pinhead inventor is holding up their profits? You can't force everyone involved in a company to think this is a good idea, and therefore, it isn't. Edit: (For some added color, imagine Kevin O'leary of Shark Tank fame sitting on the board of a company with some of these patents).

Umm, yes I do. Shark Tank notwithstanding, I am a patent lawyer, and I see these deals all the time.
Post reply on HN