3 ms·

I could be wrong, but I took that to mean the tweet thread was written not to leak anything that wasn’t already publicly available in the patents. Not that the

I could be wrong, but I took that to mean the tweet thread was written not to leak anything that wasn’t already publicly available in the patents. Not that the patents were written to not disclose anything. In which case patent regime is working exactly as intended and promoting dissemination of ideas while still providing the (time limited) economic advantages to the inventor.

justinator 3y ago
As is written, the subject of what's, "carefully written" are, "the details [...] in patents".
- bdowling 3y ago
  The "in patents" modifies "available", not "details". Had he wanted to state that the patents were carefully written, he would have written "which", not "and".
  - justinator 3y ago
    Again, original sentence, "All of these details are publicly available in patents, and were carefully written to not leak anything." I'll simplify: "Details available in patents, carefully written to not leak" What's been written? The patent. What is in the patent? Details. How are the details written to not leak? Carefully.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - jameshart 3y ago
      Stop being obtuse. The author's intent is clear. What are we reading? A tweet. What does it contain? Details. What details? Ones that are publicly available in patents. How have they been written? Carefully, to not leak anything.
      - justinator 3y ago
        I'm not trying to be obtuse at all, this is grade school level sentence structure break down. The details are contained in the patents. The tweet explains some of the high level concepts (but not the details - after all, it's a tweet). Neither - honestly - are written to leak anything (like trade secrets). The tweet goes on, saying if you want more information to hire them. It's a pitch for their consultation services, since they believe this tech will mature in the coming decade and, don't ya wanna get on the base floor? Seems pretty cut and dry.
        jameshart 3y ago
        You are asserting, groundlessly and with the intent to impugn the author and Apple, that they filed patents in a way which elided useful information. You are assigning a nefarious motive which is simply not justifiable. Assume good faith. By definition, patents don’t include trade secrets. They’re patents. If you publish something in a patent, it ceases to be a trade secret. And of course patents are written carefully to choose what to disclose. And the things that they don’t disclose remain trade secrets. All the author is trying to do in their statement is to make it clear that the only details they plan to include in their tweet are those which have already been disclosed via patents, and therefore none of the content could possibly be an Apple trade secret. That’s not because they are carefully trying to conceal anything from you. It’s because they are carefully trying not to get sued by Apple for disclosing trade secrets.
    - bdowling 3y ago
      You’re wrong about what the author meant, but you’re right about patents. Patents are indeed written very carefully to meet the validity requirements but not “leak anything”, because disclosed but unclaimed material is a dedication to the public. Here’s a recent article aimed at patent practitioners about the topic: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/prosecution-first/when-will-they-ever-learn-subject-matter-disclosed-in-the-patent-specification-but-never-claimed-is-dedicated-to-the-public.html https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/prosecution-first...

justinator 3y ago

As is written, the subject of what's, "carefully written" are, "the details [...] in patents".

bdowling 3y ago
The "in patents" modifies "available", not "details". Had he wanted to state that the patents were carefully written, he would have written "which", not "and".
- justinator 3y ago
  Again, original sentence, "All of these details are publicly available in patents, and were carefully written to not leak anything." I'll simplify: "Details available in patents, carefully written to not leak" What's been written? The patent. What is in the patent? Details. How are the details written to not leak? Carefully.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jameshart 3y ago
    Stop being obtuse. The author's intent is clear. What are we reading? A tweet. What does it contain? Details. What details? Ones that are publicly available in patents. How have they been written? Carefully, to not leak anything.
    - justinator 3y ago
      I'm not trying to be obtuse at all, this is grade school level sentence structure break down. The details are contained in the patents. The tweet explains some of the high level concepts (but not the details - after all, it's a tweet). Neither - honestly - are written to leak anything (like trade secrets). The tweet goes on, saying if you want more information to hire them. It's a pitch for their consultation services, since they believe this tech will mature in the coming decade and, don't ya wanna get on the base floor? Seems pretty cut and dry.
      - jameshart 3y ago
        You are asserting, groundlessly and with the intent to impugn the author and Apple, that they filed patents in a way which elided useful information. You are assigning a nefarious motive which is simply not justifiable. Assume good faith. By definition, patents don’t include trade secrets. They’re patents. If you publish something in a patent, it ceases to be a trade secret. And of course patents are written carefully to choose what to disclose. And the things that they don’t disclose remain trade secrets. All the author is trying to do in their statement is to make it clear that the only details they plan to include in their tweet are those which have already been disclosed via patents, and therefore none of the content could possibly be an Apple trade secret. That’s not because they are carefully trying to conceal anything from you. It’s because they are carefully trying not to get sued by Apple for disclosing trade secrets.
  - bdowling 3y ago
    You’re wrong about what the author meant, but you’re right about patents. Patents are indeed written very carefully to meet the validity requirements but not “leak anything”, because disclosed but unclaimed material is a dedication to the public. Here’s a recent article aimed at patent practitioners about the topic: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/prosecution-first/when-will-they-ever-learn-subject-matter-disclosed-in-the-patent-specification-but-never-claimed-is-dedicated-to-the-public.html https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/blogs/prosecution-first...