3 ms·
I can see understand idea of paying companies to keep an invention secret. But I'm annoyed at calling it a 'patent'. The very nature of patents is that the gov
by mabbo 5y ago
I can see understand idea of paying companies to keep an invention secret. But I'm annoyed at calling it a 'patent'.
The very nature of patents is that the government grants exclusivity of the invention to the inventor, so long as the inventor shares the invention with the world. That's why there were lawsuits about Viagra: Pfizer knew which compounds in it caused the effect, but their patent was vague and didn't specify. In Canada, the patent was voided over this.[0]
Calling it a 'secret patent' just confuses the idea of what a patent is meant to be.
[0]https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/supreme-court-of-canada-viagra-patent-void-for-insufficient-disclosure https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/supreme-cour...
- waterhouse 5y agoIndeed, the word "patent" itself—to quote Wikipedia: "The word patent originates from the Latin patere, which means "to lay open" (i.e., to make available for public inspection). It is a shortened version of the term letters patent, which was an open document or instrument issued by a monarch or government granting exclusive rights to a person, predating the modern patent system." Thus, a secret patent is a contradiction in terms.