4 ms·
If it's possible for somebody else to copy your invention without reverse-engineering your product, then you shouldn't be granted a patent. No, you should be a
by smokinn 17y ago
If it's possible for somebody else to copy your invention without reverse-engineering your product, then you shouldn't be granted a patent.
No, you should be awarded the patent. It's the person who reverse-engineered your invention and did it a different way who shouldn't be found as be infringing. They should also be granted a patent for instructions on how to make the same invention a different way, this way both become public knowledge and once the patent runs out (right now that's basically never) someone who reads both may be inspired to again make the same invention, perhaps combining both into a more optimal device.
Other than that, I fully agree.
- seldo 17y agoI see what you mean, but I was referring more to the situation where merely the existence of the product is enough to show how it's done -- e.g. the infamous "1-click" patent, which doesn't describe a technology but instead a method. My point was that a patent was supposed to be a trade: monopoly for blueprints. If nobody needs your blueprints, then why are we granting you a monopoly? That should be the yardstick, and the bias should be towards denying patents rather than granting them.
- philwelch 17y agoPatents still expire--it's copyrights which are slowly becoming indefinite in length.
- pyre 17y ago> It's the person who reverse-engineered your invention and did it a different way What is 'a different way' though? Can I create a different implementation of MPEG4? Or is MPEG4 an implementation of 'video encoding' or 'video compression?' In one instance, I can just find another algorithm for encoding/decoding MPEG4 files/streams. In the other instance, I need to create an entirely new format.