4 ms·

Hi, I work at USPTO, the following statements and opinions are my own and represent me only: 1) While many do indeed file for the broadest patent possible, in

Hi, I work at USPTO, the following statements and opinions are my own and represent me only: 1) While many do indeed file for the broadest patent possible, in my (limited) experience so far this makes an application much easier to reject. The application that I've seen so far that was the most difficult to reject was made difficult by extremely specific claims. 2) The best argument I've ever heard in favor of the USPTO is that it allows small inventors to hedge market competition risk. Imagine you are an AI startup, developing a novel model architecture for a domain-specific application. You file a patent for the method, and once your product begins selling and Microsoft creates a fast-follow product you can sue. Microsoft will have much more to gain from buying your company at that point than giving up the market to some plucky dorks with a Patent, and your IPO is just the cost of doing business for them. 3) To the extent that "it is very difficult to get a man to believe something his paycheck depends on him denying", I am aware of a personal incentive to argue for the utility of the USPTO. Idk what else to say besides offer me a job on your engineering team and I'll quit immediately. (edit: actually I do know what else to say: If you don't care about patents don't apply for one. Fully optional endeavor. If you do care about patents, then I am here to help.)

generalizations 2y ago
I remember learning about the pros and cons of patents vs trade secrets a few years ago- it's a lot less cut and dried than that. With trade secrets, you just have to make a reasonable effort to keep them secret, and then if it gets out you can sue for theft (or some such). As long as there's a secret sauce you can keep out of the public eye it's nearly functionally equivalent. > The application that I've seen so far that was the most difficult to reject was made difficult by extremely specific claims. Tradeoffs: the narrower the patent, the less useful it is, because it's that much easier for your competition to just tweak something inconsequential. > once your product begins selling and Microsoft creates a fast-follow product you can sue Not that easy - you need to be able to afford a patent law fight. Big companies like MS might just take it anyway and risk the lawsuit, because they can afford to drag it out longer than you can stay solvent. On the other hand, if you go the trade secret route, Microsoft can't fast-follow because you didn't publish the whole thing.
- freejazz 2y ago
  It's not functionally equivalent at all because trade secrets have no term limitation, whereas patents have express term limits. >Not that easy - you need to be able to afford a patent law fight. Big companies like MS might just take it anyway and risk the lawsuit, because they can afford to drag it out longer than you can stay solvent. People bemoan plaintiff-side patent litigation financing but this is exactly why it exists and is a good thing, imo.

generalizations 2y ago

I remember learning about the pros and cons of patents vs trade secrets a few years ago- it's a lot less cut and dried than that. With trade secrets, you just have to make a reasonable effort to keep them secret, and then if it gets out you can sue for theft (or some such). As long as there's a secret sauce you can keep out of the public eye it's nearly functionally equivalent. > The application that I've seen so far that was the most difficult to reject was made difficult by extremely specific claims. Tradeoffs: the narrower the patent, the less useful it is, because it's that much easier for your competition to just tweak something inconsequential. > once your product begins selling and Microsoft creates a fast-follow product you can sue Not that easy - you need to be able to afford a patent law fight. Big companies like MS might just take it anyway and risk the lawsuit, because they can afford to drag it out longer than you can stay solvent. On the other hand, if you go the trade secret route, Microsoft can't fast-follow because you didn't publish the whole thing.

freejazz 2y ago
It's not functionally equivalent at all because trade secrets have no term limitation, whereas patents have express term limits. >Not that easy - you need to be able to afford a patent law fight. Big companies like MS might just take it anyway and risk the lawsuit, because they can afford to drag it out longer than you can stay solvent. People bemoan plaintiff-side patent litigation financing but this is exactly why it exists and is a good thing, imo.