3 ms·
Agreed entirely. To make the metaphor accurate, the chef would then have to sue someone else who was making mayonnaise by a similar recipe.
by robertskmiles 14y ago
Agreed entirely. To make the metaphor accurate, the chef would then have to sue someone else who was making mayonnaise by a similar recipe.
- swombat 14y agoIf no one else could make mayonnaise successfully and a chef came up with the process for making it, that chef should damn well get some kind of protection from the IP system for his innovation, invention, or whatever the hell you wanna call it. That is, after all, what will make him want to share his methods instead of keeping them a secret. That's the fundamental principle of the patent system: you share, and we give you a temporary monopoly defended by law. This patent system is obviously broken, but in the mayonnaise case it wouldn't be.
- 001sky 14y agoMayo: Its a trade secret, not a patent.[1,2] The law of protection of confidential information effectively allows a perpetual monopoly in secret information - it does not expire as would a patent. The lack of formal protection, however, means that a third party is not prevented from independently duplicating and using the secret information once it is discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret [1] Like Coke. Ingredients and technique are, independenltly, common prior art. [2] Also, this is not to be snarky: the protections are different.
- swombat 14y agoYes, and that's the bargain that patents give. Either you keep it a trade secret, and live in constant fear that someone will leak it someday, or you get a patent, publish all the details, and get a government-supported monopoly so that you know that for 28 years no one else can make mayonnaise like you do.