3 ms·
Broad strokes (and very simplistic) philosophy... Patents are most useful for inventions that can be easily reverse engineered. If the competition can disassem
by gvb 9y ago
Broad strokes (and very simplistic) philosophy...
Patents are most useful for inventions that can be easily reverse engineered. If the competition can disassemble a unit and create their own derivative from the knowledge gained, a patent blocks the use of a derivative while not revealing anything that would not be revealed by reverse engineering anyway.
If an invention is very difficult to reverse engineer, it is better to keep it a trade secret because the competition (ideally) will not be able to create a derivative via reverse engineering. In this case, a patent will reveal information that a competitor would otherwise not be able to discover e.g. by reverse engineering.
- new299 9y agoIsn't the worry then that someone else comes up with the invention independently and patents it? (and does the US being a first-to-file patent system have an impact on this)
- xapata 9y agoThe patent would probably be invalid if the product was already on the market from a different vendor.
- sangnoir 9y agoHasn't (or isn't) the USPTO switching to a first-to-file system? Proving prior art using a trade-secret is likely to be a very challenging proposition (due to the 'secret' bit). IANAL.
- new299 9y agoRight, but if the product is on the market, doesn't that make the whole trade secret thing kind of void anyway? Because it most likely can be reverse engineered? If it's provided to users only as a service, then I can see they could protect it as a trade secret by limiting access somehow. But then... would that invalidate the patent (considering the first-to-file stuff).