3 ms·
Wouldn't that just result in large companies having a even bigger advantage over the little guys?
by pkaye 6y ago
Wouldn't that just result in large companies having a even bigger advantage over the little guys?
- WalterBright 6y agoNo, it would be a lesser advantage. Patents are only useful to large companies, because filing them and suing is an expensive and complex process. For small companies, a patent is not that useful because the larger company can afford to steamroll them in court. As for putting patent trolls out of business, I doubt any will shed a tear.
- ISL 6y agoA small company with a valuable patent can rapidly attract large friends.
- WalterBright 6y ago"XXXXX with a computer." "YYYYY on the internet."
- m463 6y agoI've wondered - wouldn't a small/niche company with a patent scare away other small/niche companies?
- ggm 6y agoIf the only protection they have is trade secret, and if otherwise anyone can create, doesn't society at large secure a bigger benefit?
- pkaye 6y agoIf its kept as a trade secret society may never benefit because it is never disclosed.
- WalterBright 6y agoCompanies extensively keep trade secrets anyway. There was a case recently where an employee stole trade secret code to an autodrive system.
- ISL 6y agoWhen they do, they risk disclosure. When the secret is out, the monopoly is over. Especially in a "first-to-file" patent world, a well-guarded-but-leaked trade secret could potentially even be turned against the holder of the secret.
- WalterBright 6y agoI could have patented a number of innovations in D. But I chose not to, and they're finding their way into several other languages. While I'm a bit annoyed that they don't give credit to D for it, they don't have to.
- 1cvmask 6y agoPrior art is one of the ways to invalidate a patent.
- ISL 6y agoPrior art must be published. With the transition from first-to-invent to first-to-file, hidden prior art has, I believe, substantially less influence.
- toss1 6y agoDubious. Patents tend to favor large companies. A patent is basically an expensive ticket to a lawsuit, and a plausibly useful marketing claim. Small companies with useful inventions can easily get stomped on by larger companies with large bankrolls. Yet it takes years and tens of $thousands to successfully prosecute a patent. Prosecuting a larger company infringing is often beyond the means of a small company, but if they are plausibly near-"infringing" on a larger company's patent, they can be sued out of existence, or the product killed by the mere threat. Perhaps a more sane patent system would be better, but it is hard to see how abolishing the current system altogether could tilt things more in favor of large companies.