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

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#41

Post by drcube »

wickedchicken wrote: post #39
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.

> 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. Which, unless the author has specifically assigned copyright to someone else, you can totally do. A similar situation arises with dual-licensed software. Of course, older versions of the software still 'live on' under the GPL, the author is implicitly making a fork. This is one of t…

>Of course, older versions of the software still 'live on' under the GPL, the author is implicitly making a fork.

That's what I'm talking about, though. You can't say "Everybody that has previously used or is currently using this software under the terms of the GPL now owes me a crapload of money -- and by the way, the GPL is revoked and you must abide by the Microsoft EULA".

But that seems, to my untrained eye, to be exactly what this Twitter patent promotes. It's basically saying "We won't sue you now, but we reserve the right to do so at any time in the future. So keep your grubby mitts off our IP." Really, it's no different than the status quo.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#42

Post by huhtenberg »

> If Thinking Media had the patent hack in their documents, the story I just told would not have happened.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

1. Nielsen could've offered a small pile of cash (and/or a commission) to the patent holders to get them participate in the lawsuit.

2. Nielsen could've pressured the company it bought the patents from to pressure the authors to remove the clause from the patent (I'm sure it's doable, one way or another).

This "patent hack" basically assumes that individuals are more ethical than companies, and I think this assumption is flawed. Companies don't have mortgages.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#43

Post by juiceandjuice »

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…

What would be better, in my opinion, is if some large tech company had a defensive publication similar to IBM's Technical Disclosure Bulletin and allowed private parties to publish to it.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#44

Post by monochromatic »

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…

> not that I would want them to be

If you don't want them to be patented, why would you do this? Just publish them if you want to dedicate them to the public.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#45

Post by monochromatic »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #7

Reading 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…

Are you envisioning Congress doing this? (Seems unlikely.) Or how else would it be implemented?

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#46

Post by 3pt14159 »

monochromatic wrote: post #44
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…

> not that I would want them to be If you don't want them to be patented, why would you do this? Just publish them if you want to dedicate them to the public.

Because I think the bar is too low, but I would want to be able to use my patents to defend myself or companies I like from aggression.

Put differently: In an ideal world there would be maybe 10 thousand patents awarded per year. Real, hardcore research patents, like the stuff Intel or GE would need to justify their insane research budgets. But if there are millions of patents out there every single one of us has broken them, we may as well patent stuff in order to have ammunition against shitty aggressive companies.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#47

Post by 3pt14159 »

phillmv wrote: post #29
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…

Hey Phil, long time no see :)

The reason would be so that would have more ammo in their arsenal and would be untouchable by any real company (they would still be touchable by patent trolls, but that is a different issue).

As for licensing enforcement, simple I wouldn't enforce it! :) I would just enter as an ally with any unfortunate company that is getting sued by an aggressive company.

Furthermore, there are real benefits for being a patent originator, special visas, research grants, etc. But the fees are pretty hefty, especially if you want to do it world wide.

Twitter could morph into a patent shield for hire and split the defense fees with the originators.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#48

Post by CamperBob »

damoncali wrote: post #13

Guess what will be the first thing to go upon sale of the patent? As soon as there is a modicum of financial pressure to unload some patents saddled with this albatross, the buyers will have the power to strip this out. Call me cynical, but this will never work. Frankly, I'm not sure I think it should work. It smells of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I like the idea but it seems overly complicated. I think if I were to sign an agreement like this, I would simply insist that any patents I assign to the company be encumbered by a requirement to obtain permission from me before any attempt to enforce their claims.

All of this feel-good language about "defensive purposes" sounds vague and easy for lawyers to twist. Instead, if I'm going to design land mines for you, you have to give me a switch to disarm them. Problem? Hire somebody else.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#49

Post by vibrunazo »

huhtenberg wrote: post #42

> If Thinking Media had the patent hack in their documents, the story I just told would not have happened. I wouldn't be so sure of that. 1. Nielsen could've offered a small pile of cash (and/or a commission) to the patent holders to get them participate in the lawsuit. 2. Nielsen could've pressured the company it bought the patents from to pressure the authors to remove the clause from the patent (I'm sure it's doab…

Either would break the agreement.

> Assignees must obtain prior written permission from all of the Inventors without additional consideration or threat.

Re: The Twitter "Patent Hack"

#50

Post by PotatoEngineer »

drcube wrote: post #41
wickedchicken wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Which, unless the author has specifically assigned copyright to someone else, you can totally do. A similar situation arises with dual-licensed software. Of course, older versions of the software still 'live on' under the GPL, the author is implicitly making a fork. This is one of t…

>Of course, older versions of the software still 'live on' under the GPL, the author is implicitly making a fork. That's what I'm talking about, though. You can't say "Everybody that has previously used or is currently using this software under the terms of the GPL now owes me a crapload of money -- and by the way, the GPL is revoked and you must abide by the Microsoft EULA". But that seems, to my untrained eye, to b…

No, the point is that all of the current & older versions of software would still be GPL. Only the author's next release (possibly released today) would be under different licensing terms. You can't revoke the GPL.
Post reply on HN