[3pt14159]

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 allow them to be used offensively"

Because that would be balls-to-the-wall-hella-fucking-awesome.

[phillmv]

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 so people can't abuse it.

[3pt14159]

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.

[larrys]

"Twitter could morph into a patent shield for hire"

That's not their business model and no matter how noble the idea I can't imagine them going down that road. Even if it in some way benefits them.

[juiceandjuice]

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.

[monochromatic]

> 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.

[3pt14159]

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.