4 ms·
> a company can (indeed must) publish their process...everyone else can learn it I used to find this compelling, then I found out that standard practice is to
by kbutler 6y ago
> a company can (indeed must) publish their process...everyone else can learn it
I used to find this compelling, then I found out that standard practice is to avoid reading patents, because 1) they're not written to instruct, but drafted to claim broad implications and exclude prior art, and 2) exposure to patented material increases liability if you are found to be infringing.
Are there any examples of any inventor using published patents to learn from, rather than just patent searches to help drafting their own patents?
> improve it, at which point the patent no longer applies.
This is generally wrong - the original patent still applies. You can get a separate patent on your improvements, but until the original patent expires, you can't use the foundational invention without licensing the original patent.
- Silhouette 6y agoHaving participated in the system as an inventor, I can confirm that this is unfortunately quite accurate. The patent lawyer was surprised that we sent a technical expert who actually understood the invention to explain it to them, and seemed to find it a welcome and refreshing change from their usual clients. I really have read some other patents in the field. It turned out that some US universities like to patent maths before they publish it in papers or at conferences. I learned nothing new that the academic papers didn't already cover. The only result was that, fearful of committing wilful infringement, we avoided using anything resembling that entire area in any software associated with our invention. The lawyer advised me not to do that (read other patents) any more.