Say what you want about Twitter – pointless, annoying, noise, useless – at least the company has its heart in the right place. Twitter just announced the Innovator’s Patent Agreement, a promise not use their or their employees’ patents offensively. In a world where yesterday’s innovators are today’s patent trolls – Apple, Microsoft, Oracle – this is a big deal.
The basic gist of the – for now – draft agreement is that Twitter promises not to use its patents or its employees’ patents in an offensive manner without explicit permission from the people listed as inventors. This applies to both past, present, and future patents, and is strictly transferable; if the patents are sold, the original agreement still stands.
“The IPA is a new way to do patent assignment that keeps control in the hands of engineers and designers,” writes Adam Messinger, VP of engineering at Twitter, “It is a commitment from Twitter to our employees that patents can only be used for defensive purposes. We will not use the patents from employees’ inventions in offensive litigation without their permission. What’s more, this control flows with the patents, so if we sold them to others, they could only use them as the inventor intended.”
Currently, the norm in the industry is that employers automatically gain ownership of all patents filed by their employees. These patents could then be sold to another company, which could also do whatever the heck they wanted with them. This potentially puts a damper on innovation, as employees may not wish to contribute to the current sad state of the industry.
The agreement is still being written and finalised, and will be implemented later this year. Ever jaded and cynical as I am, there’s a part of me that thinks Twitter did this simply because they have no patents to speak of and as such could use this – for them – meaningless gesture to score some easy goodwill points. However, I’m in a good mood, so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.
Other companies are free to adopt the pledge, but considering how this industry is sick to its very core, I highly doubt the companies that matter would ever sign something like this. Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle will never sign this, since they’re currently too busy trolling (although change might be on the horizon). Facebook and Google could potentially be interested in this, and of course smaller companies not yet infested with the patent sickness.
It’s a good start, but since it’s not a law, it’s only worth the paper it’s written on. I’ve never trusted companies and I have no desire to start now, so we’ll just see how serious this is for Twitter.
The companies that are currently being ‘sue happy’ with their patents might change their tune if they get seriously p0wned by a patent lawsuit or two. If they end up having to pay millions for violating somebody’s finger gesture patent (or something equally a stupid), perhaps they’ll come to the realization that the patent profit margin isn’t worth all of the bullshit.
You mean, like Microsoft:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/10/microsoft-canada-i… (290milions$)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eolas (~30milions$)
…
Those are considered collateral damages, the big companies still gain more from patents than the occasional loss, either by licensing or by locking the market.
Of course, with all things Twitter, it will later be revealed that this promise was made while drunk late at noon. #TUI
I hope they dont break their promises, just as IBM does:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/04/ibm-breaks-oss-pate…
IBM first released 511 patents to open source, but what happened? Read the article.
” In a world where yesterday’s innovators are today’s patent trolls – Apple, Microsoft, Oracle -”
I would be interested to know what definition of “patent troll” you use to consider any of these companies as one of them.
Edited 2012-04-18 07:46 UTC
“Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who buys and enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered by the target or observers as unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention.”
Wikipedia.
Indeed.
It seems you forgot the key point which make the difference between an actual patent troll and a company such as the one you mentioned:
“with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention”
And you miss the key word:
“often with no intention”.
It fascinates me how hard some people try not to have to accept reality. Quite entertaining.
Edited 2012-04-18 08:09 UTC
Does it matter how often the intention is, though? Patent troll is hardly a legal term with precise legal definitions. It’s more like a meme and those aren’t well defined.
I think the more important feature of genuine patent trolls is their core business model. Apple et al’s core business model isn’t patent litigation. They may be “evil” companies, evil meaning “anticompetitive”, but patent troll is a very specific subset of anticompetitive.
That’s definitely true, but there’s no denying that once you use patents JUST to stifle competition (like these companies are doing), the term troll applies just fine.
You wouldn’t hear me if Apple was, say, suing makers of the Aeppl yPhone, those 1:1 copies that run some Flash-based OS with the same icons and all that.
Still, “often” means often.
You can’t claim Apple/Microsoft often don’t want to do anything with their patents. When they sue it’s always regarding patented stuff already in use. So in their cases it’s “never”.
We have been over this before. You regard anyone who sues over patents to be a troll, unless they’re on your good guys list. You degrade the term offering no differences between for example a real company like Microsoft or a shady one that produces nothing and just buys patents to sue.
How would you qualify those? Mega trolls or trolls++?
Because the way Microsoft gets royalties after Android phones sold by other companies is completely different from “produces nothing and just buys patents to sue”, right?
Microsoft hasn’t sued those companies, they threaten to sue unless they license patented technology. These patents may be disputed, but most “targets” tend to license. Even so, these patents, valid or not, belong to Microsoft, are/were in use by Microsoft and Microsoft does a whole lot more than collecting patent money.
Compare this to companies that run from a small office and do nothing else but buying patents with the SOLE intent to sue. Their whole business is focussed on this, it’s their only business, all employees, both of them, do nothing else but patent related stuff.
Besides, if Microsoft doesn’t make those companies license their patents or sue they risk invalidating their patents.
This only applies to trademarks, not patents or copyright.
The mafia hasn’t broken my knee caps. They only threaten to break my knee caps if I don’t pay them protection money. The fairness of the relationship may be disputed, but I tend to choose the “intact knee caps” option.
Earlier today you doubted Thom’s definition of patent troll and now you claim Microsoft isn’t an American company, but an Italian crime syndicate.
First, why does it matter I doubted Thom’s definition? Am I not allowed to reach different conclusions.
Second, you have a comprehension problem. I wasn’t claiming Microsoft is the mafia. I was demonstrating the reductio ad absurdum of your argument that because Microsoft threatens more than sues that it somehow makes it better. Because patents and licence fees are far removed from physical reality, I exposed the ridiculousness of your argument by making an analogous argument with mafiae and knee caps.
Threatening someone until the pay a licence fee is not somehow much better than suing someone for damages and licence fees.
So no, I don’t think Microsoft et al are patent trolls, but they are engaging in patent troll behaviour. It’s not a difficult distinction. Well, it’s not difficult for someone who understands when an argument is analogous and not saying Microsoft is the mafia, so you may have problems understanding it.
Well, it’s a very bad analogy, but at least it didn’t mention cars for once.
It’s not an analogy. It’s an analogous ARGUMENT. Seriously, people here have really bad reading skills.
What was bad was your argument that the “threat/licence” cycle exempts Microsoft et al from having “engaged in” “threaten/sue” behaviour.
Edited 2012-04-18 13:05 UTC
Nah, I just think you’re trolling. Not saying you are one of course.
Your posts continue to lack any sort of rigorous logical thought.
I already made my point and I’m not going to continue arguing about it when people start using comparisons that don’t compare, wether they call them analogies or analogical arguments.
Those kind of discussions leave the original statement/claim/argument far beyond the horizon and end in nitpicking details about wether a comparison is valid or not.
You’re already falling over if something is called an analogy or analogical argument which is something completely different than what defines a patent troll. What I make a patent troll I have already explained and I don’t care about different flavors of making analogies.
I’ll explain my argument again:
A company is not a patent troll if it’s not their sole or dominating business model. A true patent troll sues based on patents they have no intent of using themselves to bear products to market. It can not be claimed either Microsoft or Apple sue based on patents they do not currently use or have used. There are a number of ‘companies’ that don’t produce anything, but they do buy patents and sue (or license).
Those companies and Microsoft/Apple are in two complete different leagues. That’s why I disagree with Thom you can throw them all on the same pile. I’m not going to learn about all the different kinds/levels of patent trolls. Let’s have just one kind.
Quite convenient if you are an Apple fan, is it not?
Why should it be? Do you think I get a discount on Apple products if I argue against them being patent trolls? If I did I’d start an occupy movement in your garden and fill my house up will Apple gear.
As it is convenient for Apple haters to use the same “patent troll” term for Apple, Microsoft, Rambus or Lodsys.
Windows fanboys think Apple fanboys are a bunch of c***s. Apple fanboys think Windows fanboys are a bunch of c***s.
When will they realize?
This is proof you haven’t even read my point. I also have said Microsoft et al wasn’t a troll.
However, you’ve already mistaken patents with trademarks, so it’s no surprised you have trouble comprehending simply nuances.
Which I don’t deny or dispute, I just repeated my original argument which has nothing to do with you or your point.
Your original argument is wrong and absurd. Which is my point.
Well, despite my insane argument and your logical assumption we still arrived at the same conclusion apparently.
Except I didn’t. Here’s my point:
1) Microsoft et al aren’t patent trolls
2) Microsoft et al, nevertheless, engage in patent troll behaviour
3) 2) does not make them patent trolls, but neither does it exonerate their behaviour.
I don’t see the difficulty you’re having with a non-black/white world.
We reached the same conclusion that Microsoft et al isn’t a patent troll, only you add to it that you don’t approve their behavior.
I didn’t include it in my argument, although I have done in the (recent) past, but I don’t argue against it either in my latest argumentation.
All this patent suing isn’t something I approve of either, but it’s not something I want to go in to again this time. What bites me is the generalizing Thom does, the good and bad guys portrait he always paints, the black and white world, the them against us situation he wants to create. Even now he paints me as an Apple fan (hence my Commodore logo as an avatar) and thus whatever I say is biased or wrong. No arguments, just good or evil.
I object to his stretching of the patent troll definition, because it kills any sensible discussion. The moment a member of his bad guys lists does anything patent wise everybody will start chanting “patent troll” and no one will be allowed to say anything else.
This is what I think and how I feel (and have said a number of times before) and in no way intended to disagree with what you have said. In fact I agreed with your first posting in this thread.
Indeed.
It seems you forgot the key point which make the difference between an actual patent troll and a company such as the one you mentioned:
“with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention”
And you miss the key word:
“often with no intention”.
It fascinates me how hard some people try not to have to accept reality. Quite entertaining.
I think you missed the key phrase
“who buys and enforces patents”
Most of the companies listed didn’t buy the the patents they are enforcing. They were granted/given the patents.They are the original patent holders.
Tolls buy up other people’s patents then enforce them.
Edited 2012-04-21 07:47 UTC
I promise not to be offensive.
Faarrrrrrrrrrrrrtt….
I wonder if the real reason is that they don’t have that many patents. Usually even software patents require some type of hardware; since the loophole is to patent “Do X in software on a machine”.
While Twitter’s efforts are welcome it seems like this IPA is pretty vague and some of the key elements are very open to interpretation.
This initiative gives Twitter some useful positive press but in reality it doesn’t change much .
I also find your views of certain companies as “patent trolls”, while leaving others out of the picture, pretty naive.
Since Windows 7 is such a vast success, I guess the Microsoft-bashers needed to come up with some other attempt to insult, enter “patent troll”.
If some people aren’t crying about Microsoft, they’re not happy.
If not, then who cares?