I’m gonna avoid opining on the value of the patent system in general. But one way of reading this statement is that the patents were written to avoid leaking an

I’m gonna avoid opining on the value of the patent system in general. But one way of reading this statement is that the patents were written to avoid leaking anything about what the technology was going to be used for. It’s entirely possible that the patents created for the Vision Pro are good enough to recreate many of the individual components that have been patented, but don’t help you assemble the entire product. Which I would argue is entirely within the sprit of the patent system. Just because you want a patent an idea a receive a monopoly on it reproduction doesn’t mean you need give away the details of how your entire product works. Indeed you may probably wish to keep as much stuff a possible hidden a pure trade secrets, if you’re confident that they can’t be easily reverse engineered or replicated. But none of that diminishes the value of the knowledge shared in a patent. Nor does it inherently mean that the patents are written in a way to be entirely useless, they’re just extremely specific and don’t include broader context that isn’t needed to reproduce the specific thing being patented. For example you could patent “estimating human emotional intent from body worn bio-sensors”, without once mentioning its intended for use in a VR headset. Just because you intentionally avoid mentioning a VR headset doesn’t make the information in the patent useless.