

Twitter’s Surprising Solution to the Patent Problem: Let Employees Control Them - draker
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/02/twitters-ingenious-solution-to-the-patent-problem-let-inventors-control-the-patents/

======
fnordfnordfnord
I've had a number of jobs over the years, both at public universities and
private companies. Each time there was this nasty sounding piece of legal
paper presented to me about patents and copyrights "You agree that every good
idea you ever have is property of..." I've never signed one. Sometimes they'd
counter with a much more reasonable agreement, and in a couple of cases they
didn't seem to have any idea what to do so they just blew it off, after having
a few attempts at pestering me to sign it. A couple times the HR people
involved seemed quite annoyed that anyone would be different and told me that
nobody else ever had any issue with their agreement and why won't I just sign
it so we can move forward? If that's really true, then I wish more people
would read things before they sign them.

------
ubervero
This thing again? Every patent expert I've talked to has told me this is just
a bait to lure developers to Twitter: the language is so broad that Twitter's
IPA is no different than others. If you look at GitHub you can see that the
relevant commits and issues raised have been ignored or dismissed with "it's
your opinion against mine". No wonder the repo has been silent for months. I
really like the idea but, at patent law teaches us, ideas are worth nothing
without execution.

------
mcfunley
What stops the employee and the inventors from just agreeing to use the patent
offensively? And if they can do that then what stops the company from just
compelling the employee to agree?

I know the IPA says they have to obtain the permission "without additional
consideration or threat," but I don't get how that's practical when companies
can fire employees for any damn reason they like in practice.

~~~
tkellogg
It creates barriers to use patents offensively. I'd guess that relatively few
offensive patent litigations are initiated by the company that created them.
Of those, very few of the inventors would agree to offensive usage. The only
way that I can see to convince inventors to use patents offensively would be
if they got a significant cut from the litigation proceeds. This cuts down on
the appeal of an offensive litigation.

So no, it's not perfect. It uses incentives to control abuses. Even though
it's not perfect, I still like it's simplicity.

------
jonnysilk
Great to see companies looking for solutions to the patent systems mess. It
gets really frustrating when the system that protects IP causes more trouble
than good.

I still cant believe amazon were able to patent the one click sales process
they offer on their website. Maybe one of the car makers will patent their air
conditioning button? =(

~~~
Swizec
I am almost certain aircon buttons are patented.

For instance: "Control device for motor vehicle air conditioning, with driver
preferences settings"

[http://www.google.com/patents/EP0908338A1?cl=en&dq=car+d...](http://www.google.com/patents/EP0908338A1?cl=en&dq=car+dashboard+air+conditioning+button&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OD0mUfvXBIXbtAaVloDADQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ)

------
1wheel
More skeptical take from Marco Arment:

> The Innovator’s Patent Agreement is a nice sentiment, but the loophole
> potential is simply too great, and it doesn’t (and can’t) address the
> fundamental problems and dysfunction in the patent system. A patented
> “invention”, even when patented under these terms, is still patented. It’s
> not free for anyone to use, and willfully infringing upon it is still
> dangerous and unwise ... The Innovator’s Patent Agreement is a well-
> intentioned gesture. But that’s all it is.

<http://www.marco.org/2012/04/18/twitter-patent-agreement>

------
path411
What happens if an employee becomes disgruntled and leaves the company? If
they take their patents, wouldn't the company have to stop using the patents
the employee owns?

~~~
tkellogg
No, the company still owns the patent. However, the company now has
responsibilities back to the inventor. So while the inventor still doesn't own
the patent, they do have some control over it's ability to be used for evil.

------
damoncali
How is this different than Twitter just choosing not to use their patents
aggressively? Why all the complexity? And why do they assume that the employee
hates patents?

------
mtgx
This is how it should be with both patents and copyrights anyway. Corporations
should not get to own them, ever - only to manage them for fixed periods of
time decided in contracts with the owners. And if say the owner of a patent
actually wants to sue someone, then they should be able to get a company to
fight on their behalf (and share the gains). I think this would at least
prevent most of the abuses for both patents and copyrights.

~~~
michaelfeathers
People today might not be aware but Robert Fripp (of King Crimson) championed
this back in the 90s and set up his record label (Discipline) to enforce it.

The notice that he put on the CDs was eloquent:

 _The phonographic copyright in these performances is operated by Discipline
Records on behalf of the artists, with whom it resides. Discipline accepts no
reason for artists to give away such copyright interests in their work by
virtue of a "common practice" which is out of tune with the time, was always
questionable and is now indefensible._

------
gruseom
It's interesting that it would appear surprising to let the people who invent
things control what they invented.

~~~
dreamdu5t
What's surprising to me is your absurd notion that people can control or own
intangible ideas and thoughts.

~~~
gruseom
I have many absurd notions, but you're mistaken about what they might be. As
far as I'm concerned, ideas are cosmic birds.

