4 ms·
The sad fact is not that the author cannot speak about the invention (because of the NDA), but that the patent was carefully written not to disclose anything su
by FabHK 3y ago
The sad fact is not that the author cannot speak about the invention (because of the NDA), but that the patent was carefully written not to disclose anything substantial about the invention.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoWhy is that sad? Partial information seems better then remaining 100% a trade secret.
- vkou 3y agoNo, it's worse. The point of patent protection is that you teach everyone how to build the thing that's being protected, in exchange for a monopoly. Not actually teaching people how to build the thing that's being protected, but still having a monopoly on it is the worst of all worlds. If you aren't going to teach us how to build something, don't expect patent protection for it. I'd rather you keep it as a trade secret, good, go do it, it's a free country, but then we can just reverse engineer it. If I don't have an NDA with you, I have no reason to keep your trade secret... secret.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoWell it seems like your opinion is in the minority.
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y agoCould the reason be that someone in China doesn’t have to abide by US patent law and will be free to reproduce the device, and sell it to the rest of the world? Are patents less useful once your competition is overseas?
- vkou 3y agoThey'd do the same thing if China didn't exist. It's a bug in our patent law.