If there was some form of residual compensation or continued relationship, then I could see myself being convinced otherwise - but in this situation with the information provided? Not a chance. Once the patent was sold, that's the end of the inventor's involvement and therefore responsibility. Period.
The fact that such a question, implying ownership continues beyond the sales, was posted on /this site/ - which has such a strong history of supporting the first sale doctrine - is baffling. To me, they are almost the same issue: Person A sells X to Person B. Assuming the sale was "legal", Person A is now completely, utterly, and totally disconnected from X. No liability, no ethical responsibility, no rights, no control, no connection whatsoever. The product is NO LONGER HIS, and this absurd idea that it's OK to shift responsibility from the people performing the undesirable action to people only peripherally involved is insane.
I don't expect anyone to take responsibility for my actions, and I damn sure don't expect to have to take (ethical) responsibility for the actions people make when I'm not involved -at all-.
This isn't upper-management taking responsibility and speaking out about a lower-level employee's misbehavior - it's "Generic-Small-Town-Burger-Joint" taking ethical responsibility when /Burger King/ bought their new french fry design, made the original store never use the design again, and someone choked six states over two months later. It's secondary liability - even if only "ethically" - at its worst. Pure idiocy.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by carth.