5 ms·

The thought that struck me was that it was lucky it wasn't someone's startup project, as Corning had the finances to sit on it for 50 years until it found a mar

by lutorm 16y ago

The thought that struck me was that it was lucky it wasn't someone's startup project, as Corning had the finances to sit on it for 50 years until it found a market use...

jerf 16y ago
Hypothetically, this is what patents are actually for. By describing your process to the point that anybody could replicate it from the patent alone, the government grants you a monopoly, and once that is up it theoretically never disappears from public knowledge again. Realistically there are issues of course, but that's the theory. (This is actually one of my core reasons to be against software patents; even if they otherwise worked as designed, in practice a lot of software patents are ten pages of legalese, half or more dedicated to simply enumerating the presence of a computer in the invention and various combinations of "on a network" and "with a disk drive" etc, and in the end the patent document is usually more of a spec then an implementation. If we really carried through on the logic of software patents, a software patent ought to require a software implementation in clear source code that is proved to implement the desired algorithm within a reference environment, and the source code should itself have no copyright protection. Combine that with a shorter term and I'd at least object much less, though I ultimately do agree in abolition in this domain; trade secrets and copyright are adequate to the task, if not already overkill.) Somewhat more directly on topic, I bet 1960s and 1970s material science patents probably hold a few more things that are useful today that weren't useful then.
- culled 16y ago
  Of course a patent still wouldn't have helped in this case if it has been around for 50 years.
  - jerf 16y ago
    No, that's the exact opposite of my point. By patenting something, you stick in it the database of "public knowledge" so that it could be discovered 50 years later if need be. That means it wouldn't be necessary for Corning to sit on it for 50 years. Sitting on things for 50 years and making the current status of the filer irrelevant (dead, disincorporated, whatever) is one of the purposes of the patent system. The "limited monopoly" is part of a social contract and understanding the whole contract is important.
    - nickpinkston 16y ago
      However, if they successfully commercialize sans patents - it'll be a good case against patents being needed to monetize. Finding markets, production advantages and expertise is still a bigger part of the equation than King George fencing off your market.
- chronomex 16y ago
  Check out US patent 3,223,785. It's a patent on a phone switch from 1960, including both circuit diagrams and program listing.
- lutorm 16y ago
  A patent wouldn't have helped the startup...

by lutorm 16y ago

The thought that struck me was that it was lucky it wasn't someone's startup project, as Corning had the finances to sit on it for 50 years until it found a market use...

jerf 16y ago

Hypothetically, this is what patents are actually for. By describing your process to the point that anybody could replicate it from the patent alone, the government grants you a monopoly, and once that is up it theoretically never disappears from public knowledge again. Realistically there are issues of course, but that's the theory. (This is actually one of my core reasons to be against software patents; even if they otherwise worked as designed, in practice a lot of software patents are ten pages of legalese, half or more dedicated to simply enumerating the presence of a computer in the invention and various combinations of "on a network" and "with a disk drive" etc, and in the end the patent document is usually more of a spec then an implementation. If we really carried through on the logic of software patents, a software patent ought to require a software implementation in clear source code that is proved to implement the desired algorithm within a reference environment, and the source code should itself have no copyright protection. Combine that with a shorter term and I'd at least object much less, though I ultimately do agree in abolition in this domain; trade secrets and copyright are adequate to the task, if not already overkill.) Somewhat more directly on topic, I bet 1960s and 1970s material science patents probably hold a few more things that are useful today that weren't useful then.

culled 16y ago
Of course a patent still wouldn't have helped in this case if it has been around for 50 years.
- jerf 16y ago
  No, that's the exact opposite of my point. By patenting something, you stick in it the database of "public knowledge" so that it could be discovered 50 years later if need be. That means it wouldn't be necessary for Corning to sit on it for 50 years. Sitting on things for 50 years and making the current status of the filer irrelevant (dead, disincorporated, whatever) is one of the purposes of the patent system. The "limited monopoly" is part of a social contract and understanding the whole contract is important.
  - nickpinkston 16y ago
    However, if they successfully commercialize sans patents - it'll be a good case against patents being needed to monetize. Finding markets, production advantages and expertise is still a bigger part of the equation than King George fencing off your market.
chronomex 16y ago
Check out US patent 3,223,785. It's a patent on a phone switch from 1960, including both circuit diagrams and program listing.
lutorm 16y ago
A patent wouldn't have helped the startup...