Skip to content

Issues: twitter/innovators-patent-agreement

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

13 Open 7 Closed
13 Open 7 Closed
Author
Filter by author
Loading
Label
Filter by label
Loading
Use alt + click/return to exclude labels
or ⇧ + click/return for logical OR
Projects
Filter by project
Loading
Milestones
Filter by milestone
Loading
Assignee
Filter by who’s assigned
Sort
Sort by
Newest Oldest Most commented Least commented Recently updated Least recently updated Best match
Most reactions
👍 👎 😄 🎉 😕 ❤️ 🚀 👀

Issues list

Ambiguous what "promises" are referred to
#30 opened Oct 7, 2013 by tieguy
1
Should inventor in "heirs of an inventor" sentence be capitalized?
#28 opened Oct 7, 2013 by tieguy
2(b)
#25 opened Nov 23, 2012 by idmw
3
Updated status?
#24 opened Sep 13, 2012 by tarul
4
Has this been past a patent lawyer?
#22 opened May 16, 2012 by digulla
4
Fix Twitter's Standing to Sue
#20 opened Apr 24, 2012 by jorgemtorres
1
Is Inventors (and heirs) right to sublicense necessary?
#18 opened Apr 20, 2012 by tarul
3
Patent Troll who copies to provoke patent infringement claim
#11 opened Apr 18, 2012 by nicfulton
2
Inventors, or inventors, their successors, assignees, etc?
#9 opened Apr 18, 2012 by stephan-buckmaster
3
Son (or Daughter) of Twitter
#7 opened Apr 17, 2012 by DavePitinga
3
I think the solution is elsewhere: treat ALL patents as RANDR by requirement of law.
#4 opened Apr 17, 2012 by BrazilianJoe
2
2(b) defines "defensively" differently; should use the same definition
#2 opened Apr 17, 2012 by joshtriplett
4
Section 2(a) unnecessarily uses term "intellectual property"
#1 opened Apr 17, 2012 by mdekstrand
1
ProTip! Follow long discussions with comments:>50.