zlacker

>>gkober+(OP)
Didn't Twitter declare something similar?

Is there anything they can do that's binding outside of a declarative 'we won't sue you unless...' statement?

>>nchlsw+H
IIRC, Twitter's approach was to also give the inventor a transferable license to the patent. That way if Twitter used it offensively, the inventor could independently license the patent to the company who was being sued.

>>smackf+K1
That's very reminiscent of the Spooner vs. Tucker argument about dual ownership of a patent; Spooner conceding to Tucker that co-inventors should each be able to freely license, then Tucker asking if one inventor were to give away the license to the world for free would he be infringing on the other inventor's rights.