3 ms·

That's not the sole utility of patents. While it is part of the agreed exchange (temporary monopoly in exchange for publication), patents are also intended to e

That's not the sole utility of patents. While it is part of the agreed exchange (temporary monopoly in exchange for publication), patents are also intended to encourage research and innovation. Who would bother spending time and money on research if the outcome was easily copied by competitors before you could recover your costs. (admittedly, this doesn't quite work out that way with many software patents). The publication of the patent itself is more of a side effect of the desired outcome. Also, just because you don't read patents doesn't mean nobody does. I would guess it's more of a trickle down effect. University professors and researchers read patents and use it to expand and continue research and gradually for the good patents by the time the patent has expired the knowledge it imparted has diffused into the working participants in the field.

Schwolop 14y ago
Bollocks. No university professor or researcher I know reads patents - we read journal papers and conference proceedings that describe the work in our language. Patents are written in legal language such that I can't even decipher patents written about my own work.
- gbhn 14y ago
  I'm kind of surprised there isn't more patent defense on the doctrine of teachability. That is, my defense is that your patent is written such that it doesn't teach me how to do what you did, therefore it is invalid, no matter what the content. I think it would be great to see the courts adopt that standard. It's there in the law, and repairs the problem of the obviousness standard, which is to say that the patent troll just pays some expert to say "it isn't obvious to me!" and done. But teachability is a much more defense-friendly requirement: the jury typically won't be able to understand it, so if the defense brings a line of smart people who say "this is gibberish" that ought to be very compelling.
  - gruseom 14y ago
    That's such a great idea that I wonder what legal barriers there are against using it. There are a few patent lawyers on HN. Maybe one of them can explain.
- SimonPStevens 14y ago
  It was only a theory. Perhaps no one reads the actual patent document (as you say it's written in legal terms - so it's purpose is to establish the extent of the invention for the law). Perhaps what people do do though is look at the outcomes of patents like the devices or code and learn from them. My point is that just because some people (or even no people) read the actual patent document that doesn't mean that the knowledge doesn't reach those who might use it.
- josephlord 14y ago
  Agreed but there might be some things that people are free to publish in papers and journals only after the patent is filed. The trade of still isn't worth it in our industry at least but the secondary benefits should still be considered in weighing the balance (there are some real benefits of patents along with the considerable costs).
enf 14y ago
Professional programmers intentionally don't read patents because the damages are more severe for willful infringement. You don't want to know what they say if there is any chance you might accidentally write the same thing.

Schwolop 14y ago

Bollocks. No university professor or researcher I know reads patents - we read journal papers and conference proceedings that describe the work in our language. Patents are written in legal language such that I can't even decipher patents written about my own work.

gbhn 14y ago
I'm kind of surprised there isn't more patent defense on the doctrine of teachability. That is, my defense is that your patent is written such that it doesn't teach me how to do what you did, therefore it is invalid, no matter what the content. I think it would be great to see the courts adopt that standard. It's there in the law, and repairs the problem of the obviousness standard, which is to say that the patent troll just pays some expert to say "it isn't obvious to me!" and done. But teachability is a much more defense-friendly requirement: the jury typically won't be able to understand it, so if the defense brings a line of smart people who say "this is gibberish" that ought to be very compelling.
- gruseom 14y ago
  That's such a great idea that I wonder what legal barriers there are against using it. There are a few patent lawyers on HN. Maybe one of them can explain.
SimonPStevens 14y ago
It was only a theory. Perhaps no one reads the actual patent document (as you say it's written in legal terms - so it's purpose is to establish the extent of the invention for the law). Perhaps what people do do though is look at the outcomes of patents like the devices or code and learn from them. My point is that just because some people (or even no people) read the actual patent document that doesn't mean that the knowledge doesn't reach those who might use it.
josephlord 14y ago
Agreed but there might be some things that people are free to publish in papers and journals only after the patent is filed. The trade of still isn't worth it in our industry at least but the secondary benefits should still be considered in weighing the balance (there are some real benefits of patents along with the considerable costs).

enf 14y ago

Professional programmers intentionally don't read patents because the damages are more severe for willful infringement. You don't want to know what they say if there is any chance you might accidentally write the same thing.