3 ms·
> Regardless of who you are in the government, the safest answer to anything is no. This is not always true. I'm a former patent examiner. At the US patent off
by btrettel 4y ago
> Regardless of who you are in the government, the safest answer to anything is no.
This is not always true. I'm a former patent examiner. At the US patent office, sometimes granting a patent (answering yes) is the safest response. If an examiner can't find a reason to reject the application in the time they are given, what choice do they have? Their decisions can't be arbitrary.
- whatshisface 4y agoThat's actually an example in favor of the OP's point, because patents are restrictive in nature rather than permissive. Accepting the patent doesn't permit anyone to do anything, it represents the government removing the ability of anyone but the claimant to do what they're claiming. (Aside: I wonder what the effects would be of inventing and patenting environment-destroying technologies, then refusing to license them to delay their implementation. The patent system allows anyone to ban a technology, if they can convince the examiner they invented it.)
- btrettel 4y agoCould be semantics, I guess. Patent examiners permit operation of monopolies in my view. > (Aside: I wonder what the effects would be of inventing and patenting environment-destroying technologies, then refusing to license them to delay their implementation. The patent system allows anyone to ban a technology, if they can convince the examiner they invented it.) I imagine polluting companies would ignore the patents ("efficient infringement") and/or try to invalidate the patents.
- whatshisface 4y ago>Patent examiners permit operation of monopolies in my view. The operation of a monopoly was already possible before the patent via trade secrets (typical contemporary example, SpaceX), what the patent does is make it illegal to break the monopoly by re-inventing the technology.