

Pull-To-Refresh Inventor Says There’s No Need To Worry About Twitter’s Patent  - patpng
http://www.cultofmac.com/156864/pull-to-refresh-inventor-says-theres-no-need-to-worry-about-twitters-patent-application/

======
ekanes
Not sure why this was written up by CultofMac, aside from pageviews.

The inventor doesn't have control anymore, and therefore no say in how the
patent will or won't be enforced. "Don't worry, it'll be fine" is meaningless.

~~~
malandrew
Unless the inventor held onto "prior art" that inspired him that he could pull
out as a wild card if Twitter tries to enforce the patent.

~~~
stcredzero
I don't know if he can do that and still be considered to have been acting "in
good faith" when he participated in the patent application.

~~~
malandrew
Probably not, but to whom is the good faith obligation to? Twitter or the
USPTO?

Another commenter stated that he patented defensively when negotiating to be
bought out by twitter. If that is the case, he probably doesn't have a good
faith obligation from the time he filed the patent. The question then rests on
how the patent was represented at the deal. Did Twitter pay more because they
factored in the value of his patent? If so, then I reckon good faith would
extend to those negotiations and he'd only be in the clear as long as he did
not misrepresent the patent.

~~~
stcredzero
_Probably not, but to whom is the good faith obligation to? Twitter or the
USPTO?_

I don't think that makes a difference to the inventor, except that the USPTO
is less motivated to come after him.

Is the "defensive" use of patents explicitly codified somehow, or is there a
body of precedent explicitly cited, supporting this notion? If current
practice is based on precedent, then this is unfortunate. What we have
basically carries the weight of law, but was hacked together by fractionally
clueful bureaucrats on a substrate that predates a widespread understanding of
many of the concepts involved. (Or any understanding at all, in some cases.)

------
joelhooks
IIRC Loren filed this patent "defensively" prior to the Twitter acquisition.
Of course, his original intent is irrelevant now.

~~~
stcredzero
As a point of fact, patents weren't intended to act as munitions in a
"defensive arsenal." They are so glaringly broken, it's not even funny.

~~~
joelhooks
Really? I don't disagree with patents, especially in the software area, being
broken. I'm trying to think what else they might be meant to act as. If I was
to patent a novel Widget, it would be to protect/defend it against others
copying the Widget without my permission. No?

~~~
dialtone
It's the other way around. The original intent of patents is to disclose the
making of a device to the public domain in exchange for an exclusive royalty
and eventually, after a certain amount of time, for the device to become
public domain.

Since the royalty is exclusive it means that you are the only one that is
allowed to profit from the patent and here comes the defendability of patents.

However if you really want to protect something then, by all means, keep it
secret. Coca-Cola and Pepsi formulas are kept secret and will not be patented,
for example.

------
dpark
Wouldn't Tweetie itself constitute Prior Art that invalidates this patent
application? I believe this behavior was in the app long before the
application was filed (which was just the day before Twitter announced the
acquisition of the app).

~~~
gojomo
Viewing the behavior might not be enough to consider the method inside to have
been revealed.

But also, in the US, you have a one year grace period after public disclosure
to file for a patent.

~~~
dpark
I think simply viewing this behavior would be sufficient for any competent
software engineer to understand the method.

However, I was not aware of the grace period. That's the kind of thing I was
looking for. Thanks. I wonder how long Tweetie had this functionality before
the patent was filed.

------
alanh
The end of the article seems to say that since people copied the feature
between when it was first invented (by Loren B.) and when the patent
application was filed, that counts as prior art. IANAL, but isn’t that false,
if the period between the invention & patent application is short enough? What
is it, a year or two?

 _Edit:_ Gojomo says elsewhere in this discussion that the grace period
between public disclosure & the latest you can file is one year.

------
justinsb
This article is much clearer on this point than the linkbait that was posted
last time, but: This is a patent application, not a patent. When/if it is
granted, the claims will not be anywhere near as broad as they are now.

------
petedoyle
Don't they _have_ to patent this now that the US patent system is first-to-
file? Otherwise, others would be free to patent it and start charging Twitter
royalties.

~~~
pixelbath
The US patent system is also not supposed to grant patents that have evidence
of "prior art." Should another company apply for the patent after Twitter is
using it, Twitter can simply show the feature existed prior to the patent
filing date.

