Son (or Daughter) of Twitter

[DavePitinga]

Am I missing something. Or have you effectively given Twitter employees the right to go down the street and create Son (or Daughter) of Twitter, at least with respect to patents. If that is the case, I can't imagine that your investors would be pleased with this development. Parenthetically, I note that there are other statutory laws that protect "know how" such as trade-secret laws and California's Inventor's Rights Law (California Labor Code Sections 2870-2872). But a lurking issue with respect to enforcement of such laws is whether the know-how at issue is general knowledge which cannot be protected or specific knowledge which can be protected. For further background on this point, see Gary Becker's economic treatise on human capital. Confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements must also address this lurking issue in some fashion. One of the nice things about patents is that they tend resolve such lurking issues.

[benltwitter]

The intent of the agreement is to constrain offensive exclusionary patent rights while preserving defensive rights. If an entity is interested in retaining the unconstrained ability to monetize and exclude competitors, they really shouldn't be using this agreement.

[DavePitinga]

@benltwitter I find your candor refreshing. Don't lose it when it comes time to file those IPO papers.

[DavePitinga]

Just read your S1's disclosure regarding the Twitter IPA: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312513390321/d564001ds1.htm. A tip of the hat to you, Ben.