4 ms·
A couple of edits: > all about disclosure was post-hoc justified using disclosure. > It had nothing to do with "encouraging innovation" Technically disclo
by dnautics 5y ago
A couple of edits:
> all about disclosure
was post-hoc justified using disclosure.
> It had nothing to do with "encouraging innovation"
Technically disclosure is supposed to encourage innovation by allowing people to see what's up and then either choose to iterate on it (and wait till expiry to deploy the iteration) or "find a better way", either inspired by disclosed patent, or knowing that you have to skirt the bounds of the disclosed patent.
Open question about whether that actually works (I personally think the answer is no).
- tremon 5y agoTechnically disclosure is supposed to encourage innovation by allowing people to see what's up and then [..] "find a better way" Except that if you acknowledge the existence of the patent (for example in an internal paper trail), you will then be found liable for willful infringement and will face triple damages, even if you honestly believe you found a way to avoid using the method covered by the patent. At least that's the legal advice I've seen coming from the USA: - never talk to cops - never read a patent - never read proprietary source code