4 ms·

Which is an abuse of the intent of the patent system. The deal with patents was transparency in return for a short-term monopoly. If we get one and not the ot

by wegs 6y ago

Which is an abuse of the intent of the patent system. The deal with patents was transparency in return for a short-term monopoly. If we get one and not the other, it's a bum deal.

eastendguy 6y ago
So just because a company has a patent on "X", say some very specific mRNA stuff, it has to disclose all its other non-patentable production secrets? That seems unreasonable.
- RugnirViking 6y ago
  A patent isn't "this stuff exists and it's ours now", it's protection of the process of creating it. What other production secrets are there? If a patent can't be replicated using only public information, it shouldn't be valid
  - _visgean 6y ago
    there can be a lot of business related information e.g. what exact machines with what configuration they use to produce this vaccine.
    - rfrey 6y ago
      If you can’t make something without knowing the exact machines or their configuration, that info should be in the patent for it to be valid.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Anything can be called 'business related information' EU patent office says a patent must provide enough information to be reproduceable by a competent proffeshional - that's the whole point of a patent, to be usefull after it expires. It is not there to list things the company would lile to protect. https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2019/e/clr_i_e_2.htm https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/20...
      - pnw_hazor 6y ago
        US patents must provide enough information for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the inventions recited in the Claims of the patent. Thus, depending on what the claims cover, plenty of detail about complete systems can be omitted from the patent specification. For example, if the claims of a patent are directed to cache management for a messaging platform, most details about how the messaging platform works can be omitted as long as the cache management system is sufficiently described. If there are unique features of the messaging platform that enable the new cache management system to work, detailed description of those features would need to be included in the patent specification. But unrelated stuff, such as, routing mechanisms, protocol optimizations, security, and so on, that may be part of the messaging platform can be omitted from the cache management patent specification. Thus, the messaging platform org could keep plenty of trade secrets about other parts of their platform while still obtaining a patent on their cache management system.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    > it's protection of the process of creating it. That's if it's a process patent. There's also molecule patents, etc. I could be wrong but typically pharmas don't take out process patents because they are hard to prove and you need a warrant which has a nearly unattainable level of discovery to get on premises and determine if the process has been copied. With a molecule patent you can buy a sample and prove infringement with an analytical technique. While the fda has disclosure requirements on a pharma manufacturing process, it does not have to be disclosed to the public.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Yes, and the idea that those could be stolen is the process working as intended. The fact that they could be stolen and little recourse would be possible is the incentive for companies to apply for patents, which are supposed to be better for the public good that trade secrets.
      - dnautics 6y ago
        you're not understanding. If I patent a process, I am required to publish the process. Then, a competitor can copy the process (because it is published). How do I as, the process patentor defend against infringement? Because it is a process, I have to go on their premises and prove that they are stealing my process. You must obtain a warrant to do that (because otherwise it is trespassing), and because competitors could just willy nilly claim "you're stealing my process" in a spurious fashion to gain access to the premises (and learn about what competitors are doing), judges typically put up a very high burden of proof to issuing those warrants. You'll effectively never be able to enforce a process patent, so you're better off never patenting it and keeping it a trade secret instead, that way you have a bit of a moat. By contrast, for a molecule or plant patent, the existence of the product is proof of infringement, so it's easier to enforce infringement. For a molecule patent, you do not need to disclose the method you use to make it. IANA(P)L, You might be required to disclose one way of making the molecule, but it almost certainly doesn't have to be the way that you do it "in prod".
        6y ago
- z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
  yes, it is absolutely reasonable. corporations are not some benevolent entity. they are not a person with rights, despite what politicians would like you to believe. corporations have been given an exorbitant amount of undeserved power through legitimate and corrupted means over people's lives, they should be crystal clear amd transparent in EVERYTHING, top to bottom. they are beholden to the populace, not the other way around, that would be facism.

by wegs 6y ago

Which is an abuse of the intent of the patent system. The deal with patents was transparency in return for a short-term monopoly. If we get one and not the other, it's a bum deal.

eastendguy 6y ago

So just because a company has a patent on "X", say some very specific mRNA stuff, it has to disclose all its other non-patentable production secrets? That seems unreasonable.

RugnirViking 6y ago
A patent isn't "this stuff exists and it's ours now", it's protection of the process of creating it. What other production secrets are there? If a patent can't be replicated using only public information, it shouldn't be valid
- _visgean 6y ago
  there can be a lot of business related information e.g. what exact machines with what configuration they use to produce this vaccine.
  - rfrey 6y ago
    If you can’t make something without knowing the exact machines or their configuration, that info should be in the patent for it to be valid.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Anything can be called 'business related information' EU patent office says a patent must provide enough information to be reproduceable by a competent proffeshional - that's the whole point of a patent, to be usefull after it expires. It is not there to list things the company would lile to protect. https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2019/e/clr_i_e_2.htm https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/20...
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      US patents must provide enough information for one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the inventions recited in the Claims of the patent. Thus, depending on what the claims cover, plenty of detail about complete systems can be omitted from the patent specification. For example, if the claims of a patent are directed to cache management for a messaging platform, most details about how the messaging platform works can be omitted as long as the cache management system is sufficiently described. If there are unique features of the messaging platform that enable the new cache management system to work, detailed description of those features would need to be included in the patent specification. But unrelated stuff, such as, routing mechanisms, protocol optimizations, security, and so on, that may be part of the messaging platform can be omitted from the cache management patent specification. Thus, the messaging platform org could keep plenty of trade secrets about other parts of their platform while still obtaining a patent on their cache management system.
- dnautics 6y ago
  > it's protection of the process of creating it. That's if it's a process patent. There's also molecule patents, etc. I could be wrong but typically pharmas don't take out process patents because they are hard to prove and you need a warrant which has a nearly unattainable level of discovery to get on premises and determine if the process has been copied. With a molecule patent you can buy a sample and prove infringement with an analytical technique. While the fda has disclosure requirements on a pharma manufacturing process, it does not have to be disclosed to the public.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Yes, and the idea that those could be stolen is the process working as intended. The fact that they could be stolen and little recourse would be possible is the incentive for companies to apply for patents, which are supposed to be better for the public good that trade secrets.
    - dnautics 6y ago
      you're not understanding. If I patent a process, I am required to publish the process. Then, a competitor can copy the process (because it is published). How do I as, the process patentor defend against infringement? Because it is a process, I have to go on their premises and prove that they are stealing my process. You must obtain a warrant to do that (because otherwise it is trespassing), and because competitors could just willy nilly claim "you're stealing my process" in a spurious fashion to gain access to the premises (and learn about what competitors are doing), judges typically put up a very high burden of proof to issuing those warrants. You'll effectively never be able to enforce a process patent, so you're better off never patenting it and keeping it a trade secret instead, that way you have a bit of a moat. By contrast, for a molecule or plant patent, the existence of the product is proof of infringement, so it's easier to enforce infringement. For a molecule patent, you do not need to disclose the method you use to make it. IANA(P)L, You might be required to disclose one way of making the molecule, but it almost certainly doesn't have to be the way that you do it "in prod".
      - 6y ago
z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
yes, it is absolutely reasonable. corporations are not some benevolent entity. they are not a person with rights, despite what politicians would like you to believe. corporations have been given an exorbitant amount of undeserved power through legitimate and corrupted means over people's lives, they should be crystal clear amd transparent in EVERYTHING, top to bottom. they are beholden to the populace, not the other way around, that would be facism.