4 ms·
I realize that is a bit of a topic change, but do you think that ideal reflects the reality of patents today? I've read a lot of modern patents, and not one of
by nrclark 4y ago
I realize that is a bit of a topic change, but do you think that ideal reflects the reality of patents today?
I've read a lot of modern patents, and not one of them was written to convey useful information. They're all dense legal writing, and as vague as the author can get away with.
Most medium/big companies have patent attorneys whose entire job is writing patents. They don't care about the patents having any useful details to make it a useful reference. Usually the attorneys aren't subject experts on the patent topic, and couldn't make it accurate even if they tried.
Modern patents are a game where you file a whole bunch and then wait for somebody to step on one by accident with a parallel invention. Then you sue them unless they have enough patents to also sue you.
Patents don't promote innovation at all, at least not any more. If anything, they're a tax on our industry and they stifle small players - exactly the sort of person who they're supposed to help.
- bluGill 4y agoI think that is something to write our congressman about (or equivalent if not in US). Right now not only are patents written for lawyers, but the law encourages you not to look at patents since if you don't know about something relevant and you reinvent it you owe less damages than if you knew and still chose to infringe. For patents to be useful they need to be writing in the language of experts in the field -not lawyers. And the law needs to make it best for my employer to make me search for and read potentially relevant patents before doing anything. That is infringing after making an effort to avoid a patent (that the courts decide is not enough effort) is better than infringing without knowing.