5 ms·
I think this would just move people back to trade secrets. That said, I think patents could be given out less often when the operation of the device is clear o
by fossuser 6y ago
I think this would just move people back to trade secrets.
That said, I think patents could be given out less often when the operation of the device is clear or can easily be discovered by the public without a patent.
E-Ink screens released without a patent kept under 'trade secret' wouldn't have mattered, the idea would have been implemented elsewhere.
I suppose you could argue that without exclusive rights the original inventor wouldn't have bothered to create it at all - in that case there's probably a better middle ground of something less than 20yrs. 5yrs? 2yrs? First $1million in profit?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fastball 6y agoIs moving back to "trade secrets" really a bad thing? Is there any evidence that the introduction of patents actually encouraged innovation?
- fossuser 6y agoThe purpose was to both incentivize invention, but also require detailed specs of that invention to be given to the public. In exchange the inventor gets exclusive rights for a limited time. If trade secrets cause knowledge to be held from the public and then ultimately lost that would be worse. Whether that’s still relevant today I don’t know. In cases with massive research R&D like drug discovery they still seem really important. In that case a trade secret wouldn’t be enough to justify up front investment if the drug can be copied and sold as a generic for cheap along side it.
- fastball 6y agoI'm not sure I understand how a patent system would ever encourage knowledge to be made public in a way that wouldn't have already happened. Even with a patent system, if your innovation is not easily reverse-engineered then you have no reason to patent it. If you invention is easily reverse-engineered, then the knowledge becomes public effectively as soon as you release your innovation, and that is when a patent is most useful.
- tempestn 6y agoEven if your invention isn't easily reverse engineered, it could still be re-engineered by others once you've demonstrated the concept and the market. Trade secrets aren't guarantees.
- fastball 6y agoRight but that's my point. I don't think there is clear evidence that it encourages innovation, and if the technology can be re-engineered from the end result then you are not really helping society with a patent system. If it cannot be re-engineered from the end product, I don't see a reason anyone would use the patent system.
- tempestn 6y agoGotcha, but I guess the counter would be that you can't really know what someone else will be able to figure out. Some groundbreaking historical discoveries were made in quick succession by multiple people working independently; others weren't.
- brlewis 6y agoI think the system was not designed so much for end products, but for industrial technology that produced end products.
- ekianjo 6y ago> I think this would just move people back to trade secrets. You make it sounds like trade secrets don't exist anymore.
- fossuser 6y agoThey do, but there’s a trade off. If you go the trade secret route you don’t have exclusive rights. If someone else figures out how to build or reverse engineer your invention they can do so. If an employee leaks the secret you can go after them, but can’t stop others from using it.
- jopsen 6y agoIn practice aren't many patents so vague/broad that they are unhelpful in deciphering how to build something? And don't companies keep various details about how to produce something secret. It seems to me, that many companies in effect have it both ways.
- ekianjo 6y ago> If you go the trade secret route you don’t have exclusive rights. Most patents don't describe in full how the sausage is done. That's been well known for decades now, in various disciplines.
- userbinator 6y agoIn case of eInk, it's both patents and trade secrets...
- cycomanic 6y agoBut it's still trade secrets. I can tell you most companies will not patent the processes etc. that are crucial to their business, because they know that the knowledge in those is worth much more than the patents would be (it gives them a big a competitive advantage). Instead they patent the ideas behind their products in an as broad as possible manner so that nobody can actually know what they actually do and that it covers nearly every possible variations. That's why with the current system we are left with the worst of both worlds.