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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Check out section 4. If the assignee attempts to assert the patent improperly, the inventor has the right to give out licenses. The inventor's rights are permanent, not a function of who happens to own the patent.
I absolutely agree that it shouldn't be a single company leading it, but I stand by the view that an IPA protected patent pool is an interesting idea that it would be great to see play out. But yes, as the other commenters pointed out, whoever acquires it holds the portfolio, but the rights from the IPA remain with the inventor.
Note that if that weren't the case and Twitter wanted to pivot into patent trolling, they could just set up Twitter Patent Assertion Trolls and transfer all patents there. Like I said, it would be surprisingly robust.
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 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?
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...)
But, for instance, if you're part of the whole mobile patent lawsuit mess, then it is darned hard to tell the difference between a defensive lawsuit and an offensive one.
16 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 40.7 ms ] threadThis 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.
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.
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.
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.
Note that if that weren't the case and Twitter wanted to pivot into patent trolling, they could just set up Twitter Patent Assertion Trolls and transfer all patents there. Like I said, it would be surprisingly robust.
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 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?
The only problem is the fear of creating such a monster while trying to do good.
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...)
Selling a patent to a troll obviously has huge downsides, as you said.
But, for instance, if you're part of the whole mobile patent lawsuit mess, then it is darned hard to tell the difference between a defensive lawsuit and an offensive one.