5 ms·
> Part of the return the public is supposed to see for granting legal protection to IP is that the IP is then made widely available (as well as eventually enter
by jobu 8y ago
> Part of the return the public is supposed to see for granting legal protection to IP is that the IP is then made widely available (as well as eventually entering the public domain) and can be built upon for personal use, commentated upon, etc.
That's really well said. A bit of a tangent, but it's similar to how software patents should be as well. If you want to patent a software feature, then you have to include a working code sample and that sample code loses copyright protection forever.
- 0xb100db1ade 8y agoThis sounds interesting, but I don't completely understand. Does this mean that only that specific implementation may be used without a 3rd party infringing copyright?
- Tyr42 8y agoIt’d mean you have to provide a library which would just work when the patent expires in seven years, at the very least
- olefoo 8y agoI read that as, you would be able to use the sample code verbatim once the patent expired and would be able to read and understand the principle behind the patent.
- ajnin 8y agoPatents are already supposed to do that. They are required to describe embodiments of the claims, which can be used by anyone to implement the invention. However they are always redacted in the vaguest, most obscure way possible as to provide the legal protection without the disclosure part. That should be reason to reject any patent application in my opinion, but I'm not a patent examiner.
- oconnor663 8y agoI don't think they use convoluted language to avoid disclosure. I think they use convoluted language to hide the fact that what's being patented totally fails the obviousness test. But I might have a biased sample here :p
- reitanqild 8y agoNot denying what you said but I guess an even bigger reason might be to cover as much ground as possible.
- everybodyknows 8y agoThe legal term is "enablement". Not tested for prior to patent grant: >The PTO does not have laboratories for testing disclosures for enablement https://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/07/prior-art-enablement-burden-on-patent-applicant-to-prove-non-enablement.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/07/prior-art-enablement-bu... https://patentlyo.com/media/docs/2012/07/11-1465.pdf https://patentlyo.com/media/docs/2012/07/11-1465.pdf